Employee recoveries, input tax credit and notice pay recovery under GST: AAR distinguishes taxable supplies from non-taxable perquisites and penalties...
Liberal construction of sufficient cause justifies condonation of inordinate delay where criminal proceedings and jail confinement explained the defau...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5041 to 5060 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Arbitration award challenged u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Arbitrator allowed 3% of contract amount as on-site establishment expenses using Hudson's formula. High Court erred in setting aside award on grounds of non-payment of bills and lack of discussion on interest claim. Supreme Court held High Court's reasoning insufficient for interference u/s 37, restoring award. Pre-reference interest governed by substantive law, not solely Section 31(7)(a). Contract did not prohibit pre-reference interest, so High Court's interference unwarranted. Appeal disposed of, award upheld.
Arbitration award challenged u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Arbitrator allowed 3% of contract amount as on-site establishment expenses using Hudson's formula. High Court erred in setting aside award on grounds of non-payment of bills and lack of discussion on interest claim. Supreme Court held High Court's reasoning insufficient for interference u/s 37, restoring award. Pre-reference interest governed by substantive law, not solely Section 31(7)(a). Contract did not prohibit pre-reference interest, so High Court's interference unwarranted. Appeal disposed of, award upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
