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 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
581 to 600 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The doctrine of forum non conveniens was applied to determine the maintainability of a petition u/s 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court held that Part I of the Act is applicable only where the arbitration takes place in India or the law governing the arbitration agreement is Indian law. For agreements executed after 06.09.2012, if the seat of arbitration is outside India, Part I is inapplicable. For pre-06.09.2012 agreements, Part I is inapplicable if parties have excluded its application by designating a foreign seat or governing law. The seat cannot be determined by the 'Closest Connection Test' but by express designation or significant indicia. Where multiple possible seats exist, forum non conveniens determines the appropriate seat considering parties' intentions and convenience. The petition was dismissed as the seat was not in India, nor was the agreement governed by Indian law.
The doctrine of forum non conveniens was applied to determine the maintainability of a petition u/s 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court held that Part I of the Act is applicable only where the arbitration takes place in India or the law governing the arbitration agreement is Indian law. For agreements executed after 06.09.2012, if the seat of arbitration is outside India, Part I is inapplicable. For pre-06.09.2012 agreements, Part I is inapplicable if parties have excluded its application by designating a foreign seat or governing law. The seat cannot be determined by the 'Closest Connection Test' but by express designation or significant indicia. Where multiple possible seats exist, forum non conveniens determines the appropriate seat considering parties' intentions and convenience. The petition was dismissed as the seat was not in India, nor was the agreement governed by Indian law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
