Which company introduced a 5G-powered robotic dog designed to assist in emergencies at the India Mobile Congress 2024?a) Bharti Airtelb) Vodafone Ideac) Ericssond) Reliance JioCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Which company introduced a 5G-powered robotic...

Join the Discussion on the App

Which company introduced a 5G-powered robotic dog designed to assist in emergencies at the India Mobile Congress 2024?

a)
Bharti Airtel
b)
Vodafone Idea
c)
Ericsson
d)
Reliance Jio

Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

Test: Weekly Current Affairs: October 22nd to 31st

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

Which company introduced a 5G-powered robotic dog designed to assist i...

Ericsson introduced a 5G-powered robotic dog, named Rocky, aimed at assisting in emergency situations. This innovation highlights the potential of advanced robotics combined with 5G technology to enhance emergency response capabilities. The use of robotics in such critical applications can significantly improve safety and efficiency during emergencies, showcasing the transformative impact of technology in the public safety sector. Notably, the integration of AI in robotics is revolutionizing how we respond to various challenges in real-time.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Consider the following assumptions. 1. The Suprem e Court has ruled in f av our of Vodafone mainly because the law does not allow for a case against the latter. 2. The tax claims that are being made should be rightfully made against Hutchison and not Vodafone.With reference to the above passage which of the following assumptions is/are valid?The problem with backdating taxes is that the taxpayer will have to continuously guess how much of his current income will be taken away at a later date. This is the crux of the Parthasarathi Shome committee report on retrospective taxation of cross-border acquisition of Indian assets, like Vodafone’s $11.2 billion purchase of Hutchison’s stake in the country’s third largest telecom service provider in 2007.The Supreme Court in January ruled against the taxman, who was claiming Rs. 11,200 crore in tax, penalty and interest. The court conceded that Indian law was incapable of plugging a widely used tax dodge by inbound foreign investment. The message for the government in the verdict was that the law needed to be changed to curb treaty shopping, the practice of routing investments through letter-box companies in havens like Mauritius to avoid paying taxes in India.Presenting his last budget in March, the then finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, altered the Income Tax Act to tax such deals with retrospective effect. His argument was since the court felt the intent of the law was not clear, it had to be explicitly clarified for the entire past life of the Income Tax Act, which was enacted in 1962.This last bit - that deals done earlier could be taxed -raised a chorus of protest from the investing community, and the finance ministry under P Chidambaram sought an independent review of its stand. Mr Shome, a tax expert of international standing, has now told the government what it knew all this while: taxes in retrospect are best avoided.Specifically, they must never be used to merely raise tax revenue. In the Vodafone case, the Shome committee is unequivocal: the company to claim tax from is Hutchison, which made the profit from the sale of its stake in the telecom company.Vodafone was not required by the extant law to withhold capital gains tax. Since Vodafone made no profit in the deal, the question of interest and penalties on back taxes does not arise.Mr Chidambaram has indicated his desire to reverse the decision as soon as possible, even before the next budget when, normally, amendments to the Income Tax Act are undertaken. He reckons investors will return to the table once the fog over retrospective taxes is lifted.Q. Consider the following assumptions. 1. The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Vodafone mainly because the law does not allow for a case against the latter. 2. The tax claims that are being made should be rightfully made against Hutchison and not Vodafone.With reference to the above passage which of the following assumptions is/are valid?

View answer

The problem with backdating taxes is that the taxpayer will have to continuously guess how much of his current income will be taken away at a later date. This is the crux of the Parthasarathi Shome committee report on retrospective taxation of cross-border acquisition of Indian assets, like Vodafone’s $11.2 billion purchase of Hutchison’s stake in the country’s third largest telecom service provider in 2007.The Supreme Court in January ruled against the taxman, who was claiming Rs. 11,200 crore in tax, penalty and interest. The court conceded that Indian law was incapable of plugging a widely used tax dodge by inbound foreign investment. The message for the government in the verdict was that the law needed to be changed to curb treaty shopping, the practice of routing investments through letter-box companies in havens like Mauritius to avoid paying taxes in India.Presenting his last budget in March, the then finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, altered the Income Tax Act to tax such deals with retrospective effect. His argument was since the court felt the intent of the law was not clear, it had to be explicitly clarified for the entire past life of the Income Tax Act, which was enacted in 1962.This last bit - that deals done earlier could be taxed -raised a chorus of protest from the investing community, and the finance ministry under P Chidambaram sought an independent review of its stand. Mr Shome, a tax expert of international standing, has now told the government what it knew all this while: taxes in retrospect are best avoided.Specifically, they must never be used to merely raise tax revenue. In the Vodafone case, the Shome committee is unequivocal: the company to claim tax from is Hutchison, which made the profit from the sale of its stake in the telecom company.Vodafone was not required by the extant law to withhold capital gains tax. Since Vodafone made no profit in the deal, the question of interest and penalties on back taxes does not arise.Mr Chidambaram has indicated his desire to reverse the decision as soon as possible, even before the next budget when, normally, amendments to the Income Tax Act are undertaken. He reckons investors will return to the table once the fog over retrospective taxes is lifted.Q. As per the information in the passage, the author is most likely to agree with which of the following?

View answer

The problem with backdating taxes is that the taxpayer will have to continuously guess how much of his current income will be taken away at a later date. This is the crux of the Parthasarathi Shome committee report on retrospective taxation of cross-border acquisition of Indian assets, like Vodafone’s $11.2 billion purchase of Hutchison’s stake in the country’s third largest telecom service provider in 2007.The Supreme Court in January ruled against the taxman, who was claiming Rs. 11,200 crore in tax, penalty and interest. The court conceded that Indian law was incapable of plugging a widely used tax dodge by inbound foreign investment. The message for the government in the verdict was that the law needed to be changed to curb treaty shopping, the practice of routing investments through letter-box companies in havens like Mauritius to avoid paying taxes in India.Presenting his last budget in March, the then finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, altered the Income Tax Act to tax such deals with retrospective effect. His argument was since the court felt the intent of the law was not clear, it had to be explicitly clarified for the entire past life of the Income Tax Act, which was enacted in 1962. This last bit - that deals done earlier could be taxed - raised a chorus of protest from the investing community, and the finance ministry under P Chidambaram sought an independent review of its stand. Mr Shome, a tax expert of international standing, has now told the government what it knew all this while: taxes in retrospect are best avoided.Specifically, they must never be used to merely raise tax revenue. In the Vodafone case, the Shome committee is unequivocal: the company to claim tax from is Hutchison, which made the profit from the sale of its stake in the telecom company. Vodafone was not required by the extant law to withhold capital gains tax. Since Vodafone made no profit in the deal, the question of interest and penalties on back taxes does not arise.Mr Chidambaram has indicated his desire to reverse the decision as soon as possible, even before the next budget when, normally, amendments to the Income Tax Act are undertaken. He reckons investors will return to the table once the fog over retrospective taxes is lifted.Consider the following assumptions.1. The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Vodafone mainly because the law does not allow for a case against the latter.2. The tax claims that are being made should be rightfully made against Hutchison and not Vodafone.With reference to the above passage which of the following assumptions is/are valid?

View answer

Vodafone Group Plc has won yet another round in its 13-year-long battle with India’s tax authorities. On Friday, an international arbitration tribunal ruled that the Indian government’s efforts to claim more than ₹20,000 crore in tax (including related interest and penalties) from Vodafone using retrospective legislation was in clear breach of the ‘fair and equitable treatment’ protections afforded under Article 4(1) of the Bilateral Investment Treaty between India and the Netherlands. The ruling upholding the British multinational’s stand ought to end India’s protracted and often perverse pursuit of what at the very outset was a highly contentious claim. The dispute began in September 2007 when tax authorities served a demand on Vodafone International Holdings BV for tax that it said Vodafone’s Dutch unit ought to have withheld while acquiring the controlling stake in the erstwhile Hutchison Essar Ltd. from Hutchison Telecommunications International Ltd. Since the stake purchase transaction took place outside India between two overseas entities, Vodafone was emphatic from the start that it was not liable for any tax relating to the deal. Following a setback at the Bombay High Court, Vodafone presented its position to the Supreme Court, which ruled in its favour in 2012. In a move, fraught with implications for all its international investment treaties, the government of the day, however, amended the tax legislation to give retrospective effect to its claims. This was the trigger for the U.K.-based company to seek arbitral recourse.For Vodafone, the legal win is at best a pyrrhic victory. After having spent about $11 billion in 2007 for acquiring the 67% stake in Hutchison Essar, the telecom services provider has struggled with challenges that forced it, in November 2019, to write down the book value of its Indian holdings to zero. While the Indian operation has gained size and market share including through its merger with the erstwhile Idea Cellular — from, respectively, 44 million subscribers in 2007 to 305 million users, and 26.7% at the end of June — there have been continued losses in the face of intense competition and unviable tariffs. Add to the mix the substantial sum of money it owes the government in the form of adjusted gross revenue dues and the future fund requirements of a rapidly technologically evolving and highly capital intensive industry, Vodafone’s wariness to commit more equity to the Indian venture becomes understandable. The government must not seek to litigate the matter any further. The cost of doing otherwise will surely be bruisingly high, especially at a time when Prime Minister Narenda Modi spares no opportunity to woo foreign investment. Any failure to learn a salutary lesson from this loss would only serve to undermine overseas investors’ faith in India’s commitment to international treaties and the rule of law.Q. What could be an appropriate title to the given passage?

View answer

Vodafone Group Plc has won yet another round in its 13-year-long battle with India’s tax authorities. On Friday, an international arbitration tribunal ruled that the Indian government’s efforts to claim more than ₹20,000 crore in tax (including related interest and penalties) from Vodafone using retrospective legislation was in clear breach of the ‘fair and equitable treatment’ protections afforded under Article 4(1) of the Bilateral Investment Treaty between India and the Netherlands. The ruling upholding the British multinational’s stand ought to end India’s protracted and often perverse pursuit of what at the very outset was a highly contentious claim. The dispute began in September 2007 when tax authorities served a demand on Vodafone International Holdings BV for tax that it said Vodafone’s Dutch unit ought to have withheld while acquiring the controlling stake in the erstwhile Hutchison Essar Ltd. from Hutchison Telecommunications International Ltd. Since the stake purchase transaction took place outside India between two overseas entities, Vodafone was emphatic from the start that it was not liable for any tax relating to the deal. Following a setback at the Bombay High Court, Vodafone presented its position to the Supreme Court, which ruled in its favour in 2012. In a move, fraught with implications for all its international investment treaties, the government of the day, however, amended the tax legislation to give retrospective effect to its claims. This was the trigger for the U.K.-based company to seek arbitral recourse.For Vodafone, the legal win is at best a pyrrhic victory. After having spent about $11 billion in 2007 for acquiring the 67% stake in Hutchison Essar, the telecom services provider has struggled with challenges that forced it, in November 2019, to write down the book value of its Indian holdings to zero. While the Indian operation has gained size and market share including through its merger with the erstwhile Idea Cellular — from, respectively, 44 million subscribers in 2007 to 305 million users, and 26.7% at the end of June — there have been continued losses in the face of intense competition and unviable tariffs. Add to the mix the substantial sum of money it owes the government in the form of adjusted gross revenue dues and the future fund requirements of a rapidly technologically evolving and highly capital intensive industry, Vodafone’s wariness to commit more equity to the Indian venture becomes understandable. The government must not seek to litigate the matter any further. The cost of doing otherwise will surely be bruisingly high, especially at a time when Prime Minister Narenda Modi spares no opportunity to woo foreign investment. Any failure to learn a salutary lesson from this loss would only serve to undermine overseas investors’ faith in India’s commitment to international treaties and the rule of law.Q. Which of the following is true regarding the tones used by the author in the passage?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Which company introduced a 5G-powered robotic dog designed to assist in emergencies at the India Mobile Congress 2024?a) Bharti Airtelb) Vodafone Ideac) Ericssond) Reliance JioCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Which company introduced a 5G-powered robotic dog designed to assist in emergencies at the India Mobile Congress 2024?a) Bharti Airtelb) Vodafone Ideac) Ericssond) Reliance JioCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Which company introduced a 5G-powered robotic dog designed to assist in emergencies at the India Mobile Congress 2024?a) Bharti Airtelb) Vodafone Ideac) Ericssond) Reliance JioCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Which company introduced a 5G-powered robotic dog designed to assist in emergencies at the India Mobile Congress 2024?a) Bharti Airtelb) Vodafone Ideac) Ericssond) Reliance JioCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Which company introduced a 5G-powered robotic dog designed to assist in emergencies at the India Mobile Congress 2024?a) Bharti Airtelb) Vodafone Ideac) Ericssond) Reliance JioCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Which company introduced a 5G-powered robotic dog designed to assist in emergencies at the India Mobile Congress 2024?a) Bharti Airtelb) Vodafone Ideac) Ericssond) Reliance JioCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Which company introduced a 5G-powered robotic dog designed to assist in emergencies at the India Mobile Congress 2024?a) Bharti Airtelb) Vodafone Ideac) Ericssond) Reliance JioCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Which company introduced a 5G-powered robotic dog designed to assist in emergencies at the India Mobile Congress 2024?a) Bharti Airtelb) Vodafone Ideac) Ericssond) Reliance JioCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Which company introduced a 5G-powered robotic dog designed to assist in emergencies at the India Mobile Congress 2024?a) Bharti Airtelb) Vodafone Ideac) Ericssond) Reliance JioCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Which company introduced a 5G-powered robotic dog designed to assist in emergencies at the India Mobile Congress 2024?a) Bharti Airtelb) Vodafone Ideac) Ericssond) Reliance JioCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam