Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
241 to 260 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 
