Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
SC affirmed the arbitral award, holding that the Development Agreement remained binding after the Supplementary Agreement failed to meet its conditions precedent. The court found L&T committed fundamental breaches by abandoning the project, failing to pay External Development Charges, and not fulfilling contractual obligations. The termination by PCL was justified. The court emphasized its limited powers under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act, confirming it cannot modify arbitral awards but only set aside or remand under specific circumstances. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the original arbitral tribunal's findings of coercion and breach of contract by L&T.
SC affirmed the arbitral award, holding that the Development Agreement remained binding after the Supplementary Agreement failed to meet its conditions precedent. The court found L&T committed fundamental breaches by abandoning the project, failing to pay External Development Charges, and not fulfilling contractual obligations. The termination by PCL was justified. The court emphasized its limited powers under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act, confirming it cannot modify arbitral awards but only set aside or remand under specific circumstances. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the original arbitral tribunal's findings of coercion and breach of contract by L&T.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
