Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court exceeded its limited jurisdiction u/s 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by undertaking a detailed examination of the factual matrix and assessing the auditor's report, instead of merely ascertaining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court clarified that the referral courts' limited jurisdiction u/s 11 must not be misused to force parties into costly arbitration, but this does not determine the merits, which the Arbitral Tribunal is rightfully equipped to decide. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order, reiterating the narrow scope of judicial scrutiny at the Section 11 stage after the 2015 amendment.
The High Court exceeded its limited jurisdiction u/s 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by undertaking a detailed examination of the factual matrix and assessing the auditor's report, instead of merely ascertaining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court clarified that the referral courts' limited jurisdiction u/s 11 must not be misused to force parties into costly arbitration, but this does not determine the merits, which the Arbitral Tribunal is rightfully equipped to decide. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order, reiterating the narrow scope of judicial scrutiny at the Section 11 stage after the 2015 amendment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
