Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
The High Court examined the jurisdiction of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council to refer disputes between the parties for arbitration under the 2006 Act. It held that although the agreement was entered into before the supplier registered as a small enterprise, the work continued after registration. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Shanti Conductors' case, it ruled that the applicability of the Act is determined based on when goods/services were rendered, not the contract date. The Court noted that MRPL had initially raised the jurisdictional issue but later gave it up before the Single Judge. Hence, the Council had jurisdiction to refer disputes to arbitration u/s 18 of the 2006 Act. Regarding the impact of the "No Claim Certificate" issued by the supplier, the Court refrained from examining it as MRPL's petition u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act was pending adjudication. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
The High Court examined the jurisdiction of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council to refer disputes between the parties for arbitration under the 2006 Act. It held that although the agreement was entered into before the supplier registered as a small enterprise, the work continued after registration. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Shanti Conductors' case, it ruled that the applicability of the Act is determined based on when goods/services were rendered, not the contract date. The Court noted that MRPL had initially raised the jurisdictional issue but later gave it up before the Single Judge. Hence, the Council had jurisdiction to refer disputes to arbitration u/s 18 of the 2006 Act. Regarding the impact of the "No Claim Certificate" issued by the supplier, the Court refrained from examining it as MRPL's petition u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act was pending adjudication. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
