Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The court dismissed the appeal against the arbitrator's decision not to levy liquidated damages due to the failure to plead and demonstrate legal injury. The court held that liquidated damages are no different from unliquidated damages, and in both cases, the aggrieved party must demonstrate legal injury. Liquidated damages represent the maximum amount payable, but u/s 74 of the Contract Act, reasonable compensation must be paid. Since there were no pleadings regarding the imposition of liquidated damages, no leave could be granted at the second stage of scrutiny. The appeal was dismissed, and costs were quantified at Rs. 20,000/-.
The court dismissed the appeal against the arbitrator's decision not to levy liquidated damages due to the failure to plead and demonstrate legal injury. The court held that liquidated damages are no different from unliquidated damages, and in both cases, the aggrieved party must demonstrate legal injury. Liquidated damages represent the maximum amount payable, but u/s 74 of the Contract Act, reasonable compensation must be paid. Since there were no pleadings regarding the imposition of liquidated damages, no leave could be granted at the second stage of scrutiny. The appeal was dismissed, and costs were quantified at Rs. 20,000/-.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
