Service permanent establishment requires non-auxiliary services, while arm's-length distributor remuneration precludes further profit attribution in I...
Make-available condition excludes standard SaaS subscription receipts where customers receive no independently usable technical knowledge after subscr...
Anonymous donation classification fails where charitable trusts maintain undisputed donor identity records and evidence corpus contributions' intended...
Transfer pricing method selection favours TNMM where medical-equipment distribution involves substantial post-import value addition and operational ri...
Post-export shipping bill conversion remains available where contemporaneous evidence supports EPCG benefits despite curable procedural omissions and ...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96091 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act applies where acquisition proceedings began under the 1894 Act but the award was made after the 2013 Act commenced; compensation must then be determined under the 2013 Act, while rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements are not retrospectively imported. Appeals from such awards are treated as first appeals under Section 74 of the 2013 Act, not under Section 54 of the 1894 Act. Section 74 does not expressly or impliedly exclude Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and Section 29(2) therefore permits condonation of delay. The delay in the first appeals was condoned, the contrary High Court rulings were set aside, and the matters were directed to proceed on merits.
Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act applies where acquisition proceedings began under the 1894 Act but the award was made after the 2013 Act commenced; compensation must then be determined under the 2013 Act, while rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements are not retrospectively imported. Appeals from such awards are treated as first appeals under Section 74 of the 2013 Act, not under Section 54 of the 1894 Act. Section 74 does not expressly or impliedly exclude Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and Section 29(2) therefore permits condonation of delay. The delay in the first appeals was condoned, the contrary High Court rulings were set aside, and the matters were directed to proceed on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.