Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Interference with a domestic arbitral award under s.37, after affirmance under s.34, was limited to the statutorily prescribed grounds, including "patent illegality" under s.34(2A), which excludes mere erroneous application of law or reappreciation of evidence. "Patent illegality" requires perversity such as findings based on no relevant evidence, ignoring vital evidence, considering extraneous matters, or an irrational conclusion that shocks judicial conscience, and must be applied cautiously. Since the award was supported by some evidence and plausible reasoning, and the arbitrator's approach was a possible view, the appellate court impermissibly reassessed evidence and applied an unduly strict standard of proof; the appeal was allowed and the interference set aside - SC
Interference with a domestic arbitral award under s.37, after affirmance under s.34, was limited to the statutorily prescribed grounds, including "patent illegality" under s.34(2A), which excludes mere erroneous application of law or reappreciation of evidence. "Patent illegality" requires perversity such as findings based on no relevant evidence, ignoring vital evidence, considering extraneous matters, or an irrational conclusion that shocks judicial conscience, and must be applied cautiously. Since the award was supported by some evidence and plausible reasoning, and the arbitrator's approach was a possible view, the appellate court impermissibly reassessed evidence and applied an unduly strict standard of proof; the appeal was allowed and the interference set aside - SC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
