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 SC held that the second respondent, appointed by M/s Pratibha Industries Limited to perform electrical work on a hospital construction project for the appellant, was not a party to the arbitration agreement. Direct payment by the appellant to the second respondent did not make the latter a beneficiary under the contract containing the arbitration clause. The High Court erred in its determination. The SC ordered that any amounts deposited by the second respondent toward arbitration costs with the Delhi International Arbitration Centre should be refunded upon proof of payment being furnished. The application was disposed of accordingly.
The SC held that the second respondent, appointed by M/s Pratibha Industries Limited to perform electrical work on a hospital construction project for the appellant, was not a party to the arbitration agreement. Direct payment by the appellant to the second respondent did not make the latter a beneficiary under the contract containing the arbitration clause. The High Court erred in its determination. The SC ordered that any amounts deposited by the second respondent toward arbitration costs with the Delhi International Arbitration Centre should be refunded upon proof of payment being furnished. The application was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.