Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Validity of Arbitral Award - Ordering the petitioner to repay advances for rejected testing kits with interest and legal costs - The court observed that the arbitrator had duly considered the claims and counterclaims, particularly focusing on the submissions related to the fitness and quality of the testing kits as well as the procedural aspects followed during the arbitration. - The court found no grounds of "patent illegality" or conflict with public policy in the arbitral award. It noted that the arbitral tribunal had adequately considered all relevant evidence and legal provisions, including the contested proviso to Section 16(1) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. - Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the arbitral award.
Validity of Arbitral Award - Ordering the petitioner to repay advances for rejected testing kits with interest and legal costs - The court observed that the arbitrator had duly considered the claims and counterclaims, particularly focusing on the submissions related to the fitness and quality of the testing kits as well as the procedural aspects followed during the arbitration. - The court found no grounds of "patent illegality" or conflict with public policy in the arbitral award. It noted that the arbitral tribunal had adequately considered all relevant evidence and legal provisions, including the contested proviso to Section 16(1) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. - Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the arbitral award.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
