Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 96001 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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
