Balex Private Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Ld. AR further submitted during the set-aside assessment proceeding the address to where notices alleged to have been served remained vacant and therefore, the assessee could not reply to the notices issued by the AO. The assessee came to know about the issuance of notice when the Authorised […]
Russell Reynolds Associates Inc. Vs DCIT (International Taxation) (ITAT Delhi) Facts- The Appellant, incorporated under the laws of the United States of America, filed its Income-tax return for relevant assessment showing income being royalty income received from Russell Reynolds Associates India Private Limited in terms of ‘Licensing Agreement’ for use of Intellectual Property Rights (‘IPRs’) […]
Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research Vs Shri. D. Ganesan (Madras High Court) Facts- The short question that arises for consideration is whether the 1st respondent who has admittedly submitted a fake/ false certificate as belonging to Scheduled Caste (SC) Community, though the 1st respondent admittedly belonged to Back ward Class (BC) and thereby enjoying […]
The entire case of the department is based on the un-corroborated entries found in the computer server which were retrieved by using the forensic tools. These alleged documents collected by the department from the computers of M/s.RNS Infrastructure Ltd., cannot be described as evidence so as to fasten the tax liability on the present assessee.
There is absolutely no dispute that the foreign reinsurers does not have any place of business in India / permanent establishment in India / branch established in India / Liaison office in India. Hence, any payment made by the assessee company to such foreign insurers would not be chargeable to tax in the hands of the foreign reinsurers in India in terms of Section 195(1) of the Act.
The impugned award rests on interpretation of certain clauses of the Agreements executed between the parties. As noted above, the question of construction of a contract falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal.
It is a settled position that the High Court do not ordinarily entertain a writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or if the statute itself provides for a mechanism for redressal of the grievance.
Malvika Rajnikant Mehta Vs JESS Construction (Bombay High Court) Facts- The applicants executed a deed of conveyance in favour of the respondent. The Conveyance Deed provided for a mechanism for resolution of dispute between the parties through arbitration to be presided over by Mr. Kirti K. Shah, an Architect, as the sole Arbitrator. Asserting that […]
The petitioner, while thus admitting creation of third party rights, proposes adjudication of its right to recover possession of the subject apartments in the absence of these third parties.
Held that the first Arbitral Tribunal deferred a decision on the two applications until the issue of jurisdiction was decided. The net result is that the applications for discovery and inspection which were crucial to ONGC’s claim that there existed functional, financial and economic unity between DEPL and JDIL remained to be decided before the application under Section 16 was taken up.
