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" ?
SC dismissed appeal concerning liquidated damages claim under plant machinery delivery contract. Court held appellant's claim for Rs.107.54 lakhs was not based on Clause 21 (warranty breach) but sought refund of equipment costs. Since appellant retained machinery without invoking replacement clause, damages were limited to express contractual provisions per Section 74 of Contract Act. HC correctly rejected Rs.68.15 lakhs claim for equipment cost refund. Appellant only entitled to stipulated liquidated damages for specified breaches including delivery delays, performance failures in fermentation plant, steam, and power guarantees. Claim remains confined to contractually agreed damages.
SC dismissed appeal concerning liquidated damages claim under plant machinery delivery contract. Court held appellant's claim for Rs.107.54 lakhs was not based on Clause 21 (warranty breach) but sought refund of equipment costs. Since appellant retained machinery without invoking replacement clause, damages were limited to express contractual provisions per Section 74 of Contract Act. HC correctly rejected Rs.68.15 lakhs claim for equipment cost refund. Appellant only entitled to stipulated liquidated damages for specified breaches including delivery delays, performance failures in fermentation plant, steam, and power guarantees. Claim remains confined to contractually agreed damages.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
