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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
The SC held that the limitation period for filing objections to an arbitral award under Article 119(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 commences from the date the parties become aware of the existence of the award, not necessarily from the formal notice of filing. The respondents were aware of the award's filing on 21.09.2022 when the District Court directed them to clear fees for furnishing the award. Hence, the limitation expired on 20.10.2022, rendering the appellant's application u/s 17 on 10.11.2022 valid. The parties must scrutinize the award upon becoming aware of its accessibility, and the formal notice date of 18.11.2022 held no significance. The appeal was allowed.
The SC held that the limitation period for filing objections to an arbitral award under Article 119(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 commences from the date the parties become aware of the existence of the award, not necessarily from the formal notice of filing. The respondents were aware of the award's filing on 21.09.2022 when the District Court directed them to clear fees for furnishing the award. Hence, the limitation expired on 20.10.2022, rendering the appellant's application u/s 17 on 10.11.2022 valid. The parties must scrutinize the award upon becoming aware of its accessibility, and the formal notice date of 18.11.2022 held no significance. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.