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 allowed the appeals filed by the Appellant, set aside the arbitral award dated 27.04.2022 (corrected 26.07.2022) and quashed the judgments/orders of the high court, and dismissed the appeals by the Respondents. The Court held the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by effectively rewriting contract terms and applying a post-hoc policy, rendering the award patently illegal and in conflict with public policy. The award was set aside under s.34(2A) and s.34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the errors constituting a breach of fundamental principles of justice that could not be cured by merits review.
SC allowed the appeals filed by the Appellant, set aside the arbitral award dated 27.04.2022 (corrected 26.07.2022) and quashed the judgments/orders of the high court, and dismissed the appeals by the Respondents. The Court held the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by effectively rewriting contract terms and applying a post-hoc policy, rendering the award patently illegal and in conflict with public policy. The award was set aside under s.34(2A) and s.34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the errors constituting a breach of fundamental principles of justice that could not be cured by merits review.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
