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...
Arbitral Tribunal's award of tax component upheld despite contract being inclusive of tax. Award can be set aside u/s 34(2-A) only where illegality goes to root of matter, not for erroneous application of law or re-appreciation of evidence. Award can be set aside if Tribunal decides beyond contract, finding based on no evidence, or perverse interpretation of contract. Facts indicate total contract value inclusive of expenses was Rs. 21,74,95,091, petitioner paid Rs. 6,94,36,884, respondent claimed balance Rs. 14,80,58,207. Tribunal allowed Rs. 11,19,22,870 to respondent, rejecting petitioner's counter-claim. Tribunal's award not perverse or patently illegal, hence petition dismissed.
Arbitral Tribunal's award of tax component upheld despite contract being inclusive of tax. Award can be set aside u/s 34(2-A) only where illegality goes to root of matter, not for erroneous application of law or re-appreciation of evidence. Award can be set aside if Tribunal decides beyond contract, finding based on no evidence, or perverse interpretation of contract. Facts indicate total contract value inclusive of expenses was Rs. 21,74,95,091, petitioner paid Rs. 6,94,36,884, respondent claimed balance Rs. 14,80,58,207. Tribunal allowed Rs. 11,19,22,870 to respondent, rejecting petitioner's counter-claim. Tribunal's award not perverse or patently illegal, hence petition dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
