Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The dominant issues were whether enforcement of the foreign arbitral awards was time-barred and whether res judicata precluded re-agitation of limitation. Since jurisdiction to entertain enforcement was never challenged and limitation involved mixed questions of law and fact, the earlier ruling that the petition was within Article 137 bound the parties; enforcement was therefore not refused on limitation. The Court also rejected the public policy objection, holding it did not bar enforcement; the awards were recognised as deemed decrees. On lifting the corporate veil, associated entities could be impleaded and execution levied only against properties/assets diverted from the award-debtor to them, not against their independent assets; no execution lay against an entity receiving no diverted assets. Costs were imposed on the award-debtor. - HC
The dominant issues were whether enforcement of the foreign arbitral awards was time-barred and whether res judicata precluded re-agitation of limitation. Since jurisdiction to entertain enforcement was never challenged and limitation involved mixed questions of law and fact, the earlier ruling that the petition was within Article 137 bound the parties; enforcement was therefore not refused on limitation. The Court also rejected the public policy objection, holding it did not bar enforcement; the awards were recognised as deemed decrees. On lifting the corporate veil, associated entities could be impleaded and execution levied only against properties/assets diverted from the award-debtor to them, not against their independent assets; no execution lay against an entity receiving no diverted assets. Costs were imposed on the award-debtor. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
