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...
Applicability of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in a company law matter involving allegations of oppression and mismanagement u/ss 96, 173, 241, and 244 of the Companies Act, 2013. The appellant failed to produce the original or certified copy of the agreement containing the arbitration clause, instead relying on an "authenticated copy." The tribunal held that an authenticated copy cannot be treated as a certified copy u/s 47 of the Registration Act and Rule 2(9) of the NCLT Rules, which is required to invoke Section 8. Additionally, the court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd., which stated that arbitration proceedings are a private forum and cannot preclude filing a company petition, as it is a judicial proceeding under the Companies Act and IBC. Consequently, the appellant's application u/s 8 was held inadmissible, and the company appeal was dismissed for failing to meet the statutory requirements.
Applicability of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in a company law matter involving allegations of oppression and mismanagement u/ss 96, 173, 241, and 244 of the Companies Act, 2013. The appellant failed to produce the original or certified copy of the agreement containing the arbitration clause, instead relying on an "authenticated copy." The tribunal held that an authenticated copy cannot be treated as a certified copy u/s 47 of the Registration Act and Rule 2(9) of the NCLT Rules, which is required to invoke Section 8. Additionally, the court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd., which stated that arbitration proceedings are a private forum and cannot preclude filing a company petition, as it is a judicial proceeding under the Companies Act and IBC. Consequently, the appellant's application u/s 8 was held inadmissible, and the company appeal was dismissed for failing to meet the statutory requirements.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
