Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Exempt-income expenditure disallowance is confined to investments that actually generated exempt income, while supported business expenses remain dedu...
Objective characteristics and principal use govern mining-tyre classification, while fresh advance ruling applications may rely on additional technica...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
801 to 820 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Supreme Court examined whether the Public Premises Act, 1971 overrides the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and if there was any error in appointing an arbitrator u/s 11 of the latter Act. The Court held that the dispute related to promises arising from an agreement dated 26.09.2012, concerning the right of renewal and the legality of enhanced demand, which subsisted until 11.09.2015. The Public Premises Act did not apply to this period, and the dispute depended on interpreting the agreement terms. The High Court did not err in appointing an arbitrator u/s 11, as the revision of storage charges and right of renewal arose during the contract's subsistence and were covered by the arbitration clause. The Court dismissed the appeal and imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 for unnecessary litigation.
The Supreme Court examined whether the Public Premises Act, 1971 overrides the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and if there was any error in appointing an arbitrator u/s 11 of the latter Act. The Court held that the dispute related to promises arising from an agreement dated 26.09.2012, concerning the right of renewal and the legality of enhanced demand, which subsisted until 11.09.2015. The Public Premises Act did not apply to this period, and the dispute depended on interpreting the agreement terms. The High Court did not err in appointing an arbitrator u/s 11, as the revision of storage charges and right of renewal arose during the contract's subsistence and were covered by the arbitration clause. The Court dismissed the appeal and imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 for unnecessary litigation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
