Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The SC affirmed that under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the jurisdiction of courts in arbitrability disputes, including allegations of serious fraud or criminality, is strictly limited to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement. The Court reiterated the principle of separability, confirming that the arbitral tribunal, not the court, is empowered to decide on its own jurisdiction and competence. The referral court's scope of inquiry cannot extend to the merits of the underlying dispute or allegations of fraud. Consequently, the appeal challenging the appointment of an arbitrator on grounds of serious fraud was dismissed, emphasizing adherence to the statutory framework that confines judicial scrutiny to the arbitration agreement's validity alone.
The SC affirmed that under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the jurisdiction of courts in arbitrability disputes, including allegations of serious fraud or criminality, is strictly limited to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement. The Court reiterated the principle of separability, confirming that the arbitral tribunal, not the court, is empowered to decide on its own jurisdiction and competence. The referral court's scope of inquiry cannot extend to the merits of the underlying dispute or allegations of fraud. Consequently, the appeal challenging the appointment of an arbitrator on grounds of serious fraud was dismissed, emphasizing adherence to the statutory framework that confines judicial scrutiny to the arbitration agreement's validity alone.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
