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 upheld the arbitral tribunal's decision allowing liquidated damages deduction from the appellant's contractual dues. The court determined that the respondent validly imposed damages at 0.5% per week for a delay exceeding ten months, primarily attributable to the appellant. Interpreting Sections 55, 73, and 74 of the Contract Act, the court affirmed that the liquidated damages were legally and contractually valid. The Single Judge's order setting aside the arbitral award was deemed to have exceeded jurisdictional limits under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The Division Bench's restoration of the original arbitral award was consequently upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
SC upheld the arbitral tribunal's decision allowing liquidated damages deduction from the appellant's contractual dues. The court determined that the respondent validly imposed damages at 0.5% per week for a delay exceeding ten months, primarily attributable to the appellant. Interpreting Sections 55, 73, and 74 of the Contract Act, the court affirmed that the liquidated damages were legally and contractually valid. The Single Judge's order setting aside the arbitral award was deemed to have exceeded jurisdictional limits under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The Division Bench's restoration of the original arbitral award was consequently upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.