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 allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and held that the respondents are estopped by conduct from impeaching a compromise deed entered pursuant to an arbitral award. The Court found the respondents had invoked civil jurisdiction, asserted the suit was not barred by Section 92, accepted the award and procured disposal of their appeal on terms of the compromise deed; they cannot subsequently repudiate its validity. Applying estoppel by conduct and election, the compromise-deed-derived decree must stand, and the appellants are entitled to revive execution proceedings. Consequently the respondents' challenge to the award/compromise as a nullity was rejected.
The SC allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and held that the respondents are estopped by conduct from impeaching a compromise deed entered pursuant to an arbitral award. The Court found the respondents had invoked civil jurisdiction, asserted the suit was not barred by Section 92, accepted the award and procured disposal of their appeal on terms of the compromise deed; they cannot subsequently repudiate its validity. Applying estoppel by conduct and election, the compromise-deed-derived decree must stand, and the appellants are entitled to revive execution proceedings. Consequently the respondents' challenge to the award/compromise as a nullity was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.