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" ?
SC held that contractual clauses excluding disputes from arbitration must be construed narrowly and consistently with the rule of law. Where liability itself is disputed, one party cannot finally decide its own alleged breach or negligence and then bar both court and arbitral review. Clause 3.20 was read as permitting finality only on quantification where liability is admitted; it did not exclude arbitration of a contested liability dispute. The arbitral tribunal therefore had jurisdiction, the award did not relate to an excepted matter, and the High Court erred in treating the dispute as non-arbitrable. The appeals were allowed and the award restored.
SC held that contractual clauses excluding disputes from arbitration must be construed narrowly and consistently with the rule of law. Where liability itself is disputed, one party cannot finally decide its own alleged breach or negligence and then bar both court and arbitral review. Clause 3.20 was read as permitting finality only on quantification where liability is admitted; it did not exclude arbitration of a contested liability dispute. The arbitral tribunal therefore had jurisdiction, the award did not relate to an excepted matter, and the High Court erred in treating the dispute as non-arbitrable. The appeals were allowed and the award restored.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.