Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
