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 Limitation Act does not apply to conciliation proceedings under Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act, and time-barred claims may be referred to conciliation, resulting in a valid settlement agreement enforceable as a contract. Conciliation is a voluntary process and cannot coerce parties into settlement. However, arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act are subject to the Limitation Act, including Section 43, due to the overriding effect of the MSMED Act provisions over the ACA. Thus, while suppliers can recover time-barred debts through conciliation, arbitration claims must comply with limitation periods. The appeal was allowed in part, affirming the applicability of the Limitation Act to arbitration but not to conciliation under the MSMED Act.
The SC held that the Limitation Act does not apply to conciliation proceedings under Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act, and time-barred claims may be referred to conciliation, resulting in a valid settlement agreement enforceable as a contract. Conciliation is a voluntary process and cannot coerce parties into settlement. However, arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act are subject to the Limitation Act, including Section 43, due to the overriding effect of the MSMED Act provisions over the ACA. Thus, while suppliers can recover time-barred debts through conciliation, arbitration claims must comply with limitation periods. The appeal was allowed in part, affirming the applicability of the Limitation Act to arbitration but not to conciliation under the MSMED Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
