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 allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench judgment and the learned Judge's order, and directed enforcement of the arbitration agreement. The Court held that an arbitration agreement was concluded by conduct and email exchanges reflected in Contract No. 061-16-12115-S, notwithstanding lack of a signature by respondent, and that respondent's acceptance and performance established binding consent including clause 32.2. Invocation under s.45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was held proper; only prima facie proof of an arbitration agreement was required at the referral stage under the Kompetenz-Kompetenz doctrine, leaving substantive disputes of validity for the arbitral tribunal.
The SC allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench judgment and the learned Judge's order, and directed enforcement of the arbitration agreement. The Court held that an arbitration agreement was concluded by conduct and email exchanges reflected in Contract No. 061-16-12115-S, notwithstanding lack of a signature by respondent, and that respondent's acceptance and performance established binding consent including clause 32.2. Invocation under s.45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was held proper; only prima facie proof of an arbitration agreement was required at the referral stage under the Kompetenz-Kompetenz doctrine, leaving substantive disputes of validity for the arbitral tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.