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" ?
The Supreme Court held that the acquisition proceedings failed to comply with the statutory requirement of paying full and final compensation to the landowners before taking possession of their land, as mandated by Section 38 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Court observed that the State of Himachal Pradesh regrettably took possession of the land before ensuring payment of compensation to the respondents, who had to approach the High Court for directions to pass a supplementary award. Additionally, Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, necessitates an agreement between the government and the company for whose purpose the land is acquired, ensuring payment towards the cost of acquisition by the company before the land transfer. However, in this case, the land was transferred to the company before determining the compensation amount through a supplementary award, contravening both statutory provisions. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned High Court order and allowed the appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the acquisition proceedings failed to comply with the statutory requirement of paying full and final compensation to the landowners before taking possession of their land, as mandated by Section 38 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Court observed that the State of Himachal Pradesh regrettably took possession of the land before ensuring payment of compensation to the respondents, who had to approach the High Court for directions to pass a supplementary award. Additionally, Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, necessitates an agreement between the government and the company for whose purpose the land is acquired, ensuring payment towards the cost of acquisition by the company before the land transfer. However, in this case, the land was transferred to the company before determining the compensation amount through a supplementary award, contravening both statutory provisions. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned High Court order and allowed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.