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 High Court held that the appeals against orders in proceedings for execution or enforcement of arbitral awards are not maintainable. The doctrine of res judicata or principles analogous to it apply, as the issue of maintainability was previously decided. Even independent of res judicata, the appeals are not maintainable because the execution proceedings were under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (ACA), not the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Section 37 of the ACA governs the appealability, being a special enactment prevailing over the CPC. The court affirmed the binding precedent that such proceedings arise u/s 36 of the ACA, not Order XXI CPC. The appeals cannot be maintained u/ss 13 or 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act read with Order XVIII CPC. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable, with costs imposed on the appellants.
The High Court held that the appeals against orders in proceedings for execution or enforcement of arbitral awards are not maintainable. The doctrine of res judicata or principles analogous to it apply, as the issue of maintainability was previously decided. Even independent of res judicata, the appeals are not maintainable because the execution proceedings were under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (ACA), not the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Section 37 of the ACA governs the appealability, being a special enactment prevailing over the CPC. The court affirmed the binding precedent that such proceedings arise u/s 36 of the ACA, not Order XXI CPC. The appeals cannot be maintained u/ss 13 or 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act read with Order XVIII CPC. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable, with costs imposed on the appellants.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.