Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
