Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
The Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction u/s 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by setting aside an arbitral award that had already been confirmed u/s 34. The Supreme Court reiterated that courts should not interfere with arbitral awards lightly, and mere possibility of an alternative interpretation does not warrant reversal. The scope of intervention is confined to grounds specified u/s 34, and the appellate power u/s 37 is limited to examining if the court u/s 34 acted within its limits. The Appellate Court cannot reappraise evidence on merits as an ordinary court of appeal. Since the arbitral award was reasonable, based on evidence, and not against public policy or law, it was rightly upheld u/s 34. The Appellate Court erred by setting it aside without finding any illegality u/s 34. Merely having a better view is no ground for interference. The Supreme Court set aside the Appellate Court's judgment and restored the arbitral award.
The Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction u/s 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by setting aside an arbitral award that had already been confirmed u/s 34. The Supreme Court reiterated that courts should not interfere with arbitral awards lightly, and mere possibility of an alternative interpretation does not warrant reversal. The scope of intervention is confined to grounds specified u/s 34, and the appellate power u/s 37 is limited to examining if the court u/s 34 acted within its limits. The Appellate Court cannot reappraise evidence on merits as an ordinary court of appeal. Since the arbitral award was reasonable, based on evidence, and not against public policy or law, it was rightly upheld u/s 34. The Appellate Court erred by setting it aside without finding any illegality u/s 34. Merely having a better view is no ground for interference. The Supreme Court set aside the Appellate Court's judgment and restored the arbitral award.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
