Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
HC upheld the arbitral award, finding no grounds for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court determined that the arbitrator's reasoning was legally sound and based on available evidence. The award did not demonstrate patent illegality or violation of public policy. The court emphasized its limited review role, noting it cannot re-appreciate evidence or modify the arbitral award. Consequently, the petition challenging the arbitral award was dismissed, affirming the arbitrator's decision on contractual terms and GST liabilities.
HC upheld the arbitral award, finding no grounds for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court determined that the arbitrator's reasoning was legally sound and based on available evidence. The award did not demonstrate patent illegality or violation of public policy. The court emphasized its limited review role, noting it cannot re-appreciate evidence or modify the arbitral award. Consequently, the petition challenging the arbitral award was dismissed, affirming the arbitrator's decision on contractual terms and GST liabilities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
