Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
In arbitration review, the High Court reiterated that interference under Sections 34 and 37 is limited, but an award is vulnerable if it rests on no evidence or ignores vital material. Applying that standard, it held that the arbitrator had relied only on the final bill and ignored RA bills and other records showing that the amount for non-tendered items included GST to some extent. The Court found that computing GST at 18% on the entire figure was ex facie erroneous and set aside the award partly, leaving recomputation of GST and interest open and permitting the party concerned to pursue the differential claim afresh if so advised.
In arbitration review, the High Court reiterated that interference under Sections 34 and 37 is limited, but an award is vulnerable if it rests on no evidence or ignores vital material. Applying that standard, it held that the arbitrator had relied only on the final bill and ignored RA bills and other records showing that the amount for non-tendered items included GST to some extent. The Court found that computing GST at 18% on the entire figure was ex facie erroneous and set aside the award partly, leaving recomputation of GST and interest open and permitting the party concerned to pursue the differential claim afresh if so advised.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.