Head Office cost allocation requires prescribed transfer-pricing methods; treaty ceilings bar surcharge and cess, while duplicate taxation is excluded...
Cost-to-cost reimbursement of seconded employees is not service consideration; transfer-pricing markup was deleted and amalgamation amortisation allow...
Crystallisation of liability supports prior-period expense deduction, while functionally distinct divisions require separate transfer-pricing benchmar...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires transaction-specific FAR analysis before benchmarking business-support services provided to associated en...
Advance pricing agreement methodology can guide benchmarking for non-covered years when functions, assets, risks and activities remain materially unch...
Page of 4912
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 98239 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Arbitral sittings at Cuttack, chosen merely for the arbitrator's...
Juridical seat versus arbitral venue determines supervisory court jurisdiction, while timely award challenges remain within the prescribed limitation period.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Arbitral sittings at Cuttack, chosen merely for the arbitrator's convenience, constituted a venue rather than the juridical seat and did not give Cuttack courts supervisory jurisdiction. An arbitrator's appointment by a High Court exercising statewide jurisdiction did not confine jurisdiction to courts at its location or trigger exclusive jurisdiction under Section 42 on that basis. The contractual forum clause made the District Judge where the work was executed competent to hear applications to set aside the award. Applications filed within the prescribed three-month period were not time-barred.
Arbitral sittings at Cuttack, chosen merely for the arbitrator's convenience, constituted a venue rather than the juridical seat and did not give Cuttack courts supervisory jurisdiction. An arbitrator's appointment by a High Court exercising statewide jurisdiction did not confine jurisdiction to courts at its location or trigger exclusive jurisdiction under Section 42 on that basis. The contractual forum clause made the District Judge where the work was executed competent to hear applications to set aside the award. Applications filed within the prescribed three-month period were not time-barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4912 
