Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
In the context of an appeal u/s 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act,...
Appellate Court's remand power u/s 37(1)(c) to be used sparingly. Narrow scope of interference u/s 34 & 37. Multiple grounds waste time & increase pendency.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
In the context of an appeal u/s 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act, the Court held that while the Appellate Court has the power to remand the matter to the Section 34 Court, this power should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances where remand is unavoidable. Routinely passing remand orders would defeat the object of the Arbitration Act by causing delay and increased costs. The scope of interference u/s 34 is narrow, and the jurisdiction u/s 37 is even narrower. The Court cautioned against raising multiple grounds not covered by Section 34, as it wastes the Court's time and contributes to pendency. The appeal was partly allowed, and the matter was listed for further hearing.
In the context of an appeal u/s 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act, the Court held that while the Appellate Court has the power to remand the matter to the Section 34 Court, this power should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances where remand is unavoidable. Routinely passing remand orders would defeat the object of the Arbitration Act by causing delay and increased costs. The scope of interference u/s 34 is narrow, and the jurisdiction u/s 37 is even narrower. The Court cautioned against raising multiple grounds not covered by Section 34, as it wastes the Court's time and contributes to pendency. The appeal was partly allowed, and the matter was listed for further hearing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.