Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The SC held that Indian courts have jurisdiction to appoint arbitrators under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, despite conflicting clauses in the Distributor Agreement. While the arbitration venue was Bogota, Colombia, and procedural rules of the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre at the Chambers of Commerce in Bogota applied, Clause 16.5 explicitly granted supervisory jurisdiction to Indian courts in Gujarat. The Court determined that Indian law governed the arbitration agreement's validity, scope, and interpretation, making the A&C Act applicable. Clause 18's provision that awards conform to Colombian law pertained only to arbitration proceedings and did not override Clause 16.5's stipulation that Indian law governed the agreement and disputes. The arbitration petition was allowed.
The SC held that Indian courts have jurisdiction to appoint arbitrators under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, despite conflicting clauses in the Distributor Agreement. While the arbitration venue was Bogota, Colombia, and procedural rules of the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre at the Chambers of Commerce in Bogota applied, Clause 16.5 explicitly granted supervisory jurisdiction to Indian courts in Gujarat. The Court determined that Indian law governed the arbitration agreement's validity, scope, and interpretation, making the A&C Act applicable. Clause 18's provision that awards conform to Colombian law pertained only to arbitration proceedings and did not override Clause 16.5's stipulation that Indian law governed the agreement and disputes. The arbitration petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.