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 ruled on a contract dispute involving a bidding error where appellant mistakenly bid Rs.1,569 instead of Rs.15,04,64,000. While acknowledging appellant's error in failing to add zeros in the financial bid, the court found Border Roads Organisation's (BRO) response disproportionate. The court determined this was not a Section 20 case of mutual mistake under Indian Contract Act, but rather a unilateral error. BRO's actions in encashing bank guarantee and declaring appellant defaulter were deemed unjustified, given the obvious typographical nature of the error. Court directed appellant to pay Rs.1 crore as penalty, ordering BRO to return the Rs.15.04 crores bank guarantee within one week. Appeal allowed, emphasizing practical resolution of evident mistakes over punitive measures.
SC ruled on a contract dispute involving a bidding error where appellant mistakenly bid Rs.1,569 instead of Rs.15,04,64,000. While acknowledging appellant's error in failing to add zeros in the financial bid, the court found Border Roads Organisation's (BRO) response disproportionate. The court determined this was not a Section 20 case of mutual mistake under Indian Contract Act, but rather a unilateral error. BRO's actions in encashing bank guarantee and declaring appellant defaulter were deemed unjustified, given the obvious typographical nature of the error. Court directed appellant to pay Rs.1 crore as penalty, ordering BRO to return the Rs.15.04 crores bank guarantee within one week. Appeal allowed, emphasizing practical resolution of evident mistakes over punitive measures.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.