Condonation of Delay: directoral disputes and pending company proceedings can constitute reasonable cause, allowing a belated return to be treated as ...
Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Limited scope of processing under section 143(1): enhancement without show cause is unsustainable; remand for residency, taxation and TDS verification...
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.