« Top Headlines » Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs  Mock Test Papers Series - I & II for Students appearing in CA Foundation January 2027 Examination.  Income Tax Rules 2026: CBDT Introduces Revised Form 161 for Penalty Waiver, Clarifies Misreporting Categories and Taxpayer Relief  ITR Filing and Income Tax Audit Deadline Extended: 5 Critical Things Taxpayers Must Know  Filing Belated ITR for AY 2026-27? Know Which Losses You Can Carry Forward and Which You May Lose  CBDT Extends Tax Audit Report Deadline to October 21, ITR Filing Last Date to November 21 for AY 2026-27  CBDT Extends AY 2026-27 ITR Filing Deadline for Tax-Audit Cases: New Dates and Key Compliance Details  Foreign Assets Missing From Your ITR? Income Tax Department Opens One-Time Disclosure Window  Tax Audit Deadline September 30: Why AIS, TDS and GST Figures May Not Match Your ITR and What Taxpayers Should Do  Tax audit deadline September 30: Common mistakes taxpayers should avoid  Your ITR says ‘verified’, but the refund hasn’t arrived? 5 reasons why your money could be stuck  Missed the ITR Deadline but TDS Refund Is Due? Here’s How You Can Still Claim Your Money «  Difficult time for honest taxpayers... Tax refund cases of over Rs 5 lakh to come under scrutiny... » SC: Intl arbitration awards can be challenged here January, 14th 2008 The Supreme Court has ruled that international arbitration awards are not immune from challenge in the Indian courts of law. The provisions of Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act will apply even for the international commercial arbitrations held outside the country, unless the parties, by agreement, exclude all or any of its provisions. The apex courts ruling came in a verdict which set aside an order of Andhra Pradesh High Court. The High Court had ruled that the international award cannot be challenged even if it is against public policy and in contravention of statutory provisions. The apex court passed the verdict on the appeal of an US-based company. Venture Global Engineering, with its head office at Michigan, had entered into a joint venture agreement with Satyam Computer Services to constitute a company named as Satyam Venture Engineering Services. It was agreed that both the parties will have 50% holding in the JV. According to the shareholders agreement between the two partners, disputes have to be resolved amicably and, failing resolution, such disputes are to be referred to arbitration. In February 2005, disputes arose between the parties. On July 25, 2005, the Secunderabad-based company filed a request for arbitration with the London Court of International Arbitration. On April 3, 2006 , an arbitration award was passed, directing the US company to transfer shares to Satyam. On April 14, 2006, a petition to recognise and enforce the award was filed before the a court of Michigan in US. The appellant filed a suit a city court of Secunderabad seeking quashing of the award and permanent injunction on the transfer of shares under the Award. The trial court rejected the plea of the appellant and the order was challenged in the HC. On February 27, 2007, the HC dismissed it and the company then appealed at the apex court. An SC bench of Justices Tarun Chatterjee and P Sathasivam said: The provisions of Part I of the Act (Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996) would apply to all arbitrations including international commercial arbitrations and to all proceedings relating thereto. We further hold that where such arbitration is held in India, the provisions of Part-I would compulsorily apply and parties are free to deviate to the extent permitted by the provisions of Part-I. It is also clear that even in the case of international commercial arbitrations held out of India provisions of Part-I would apply unless the parties by agreement, express or implied, exclude all or any of its provisions.