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 HC set aside the Appellate Award as time-barred under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for violating public policy. The reconstituted Appellate Tribunal exceeded the mandatory three-month timeframe prescribed under NSE Bye-Law 19(b) and SEBI Circular Clause 6.5, passing the award beyond the permissible extension period without proper authorization. The court held that limitation periods in arbitration serve public policy by ensuring expeditious dispute resolution, and the use of "shall" in the bye-laws creates mandatory timelines. The petitioner's filing of written submissions did not constitute waiver of objection rights to the tribunal's mandate, and excessive delays contravene arbitration's fundamental purpose of swift justice.
The HC set aside the Appellate Award as time-barred under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for violating public policy. The reconstituted Appellate Tribunal exceeded the mandatory three-month timeframe prescribed under NSE Bye-Law 19(b) and SEBI Circular Clause 6.5, passing the award beyond the permissible extension period without proper authorization. The court held that limitation periods in arbitration serve public policy by ensuring expeditious dispute resolution, and the use of "shall" in the bye-laws creates mandatory timelines. The petitioner's filing of written submissions did not constitute waiver of objection rights to the tribunal's mandate, and excessive delays contravene arbitration's fundamental purpose of swift justice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
