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 ...
Maintainability of curative petition - restoration of arbitral award which had been set aside by the Division Bench of the High court on the ground that it suffered from patently illegality. - The Supreme Court found that invoking curative jurisdiction was justified to prevent a miscarriage of justice. It highlighted the circumstances under which curative petitions could be entertained, emphasizing cases where there is a gross miscarriage of justice or abuse of process. The Court reiterated that interference with arbitral awards should be minimal and only on grounds of patent illegality or perversity. It emphasized that an arbitral tribunal's decision should not be disturbed unless it is evident that a reasonable person could not have arrived at such a decision based on the evidence presented.
Maintainability of curative petition - restoration of arbitral award which had been set aside by the Division Bench of the High court on the ground that it suffered from patently illegality. - The Supreme Court found that invoking curative jurisdiction was justified to prevent a miscarriage of justice. It highlighted the circumstances under which curative petitions could be entertained, emphasizing cases where there is a gross miscarriage of justice or abuse of process. The Court reiterated that interference with arbitral awards should be minimal and only on grounds of patent illegality or perversity. It emphasized that an arbitral tribunal's decision should not be disturbed unless it is evident that a reasonable person could not have arrived at such a decision based on the evidence presented.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
