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 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 4828 
Join Channel 
