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 a statutory board cannot nullify the State's eminent domain power by entering into a private agreement to return compulsorily acquired land. The Court emphasized that without a formal conveyance document transferring the land from the government to the Board, the Board had no absolute rights over the property. The agreement dated 30.09.1988 was deemed contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law as it attempted to reverse a sovereign acquisition for public purpose. The Court noted suspicious circumstances surrounding the agreement's preparation before Board approval. The arbitral award upholding this agreement was invalid, and lower courts erred in not setting it aside under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Appeal allowed.
The SC held that a statutory board cannot nullify the State's eminent domain power by entering into a private agreement to return compulsorily acquired land. The Court emphasized that without a formal conveyance document transferring the land from the government to the Board, the Board had no absolute rights over the property. The agreement dated 30.09.1988 was deemed contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law as it attempted to reverse a sovereign acquisition for public purpose. The Court noted suspicious circumstances surrounding the agreement's preparation before Board approval. The arbitral award upholding this agreement was invalid, and lower courts erred in not setting it aside under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.