Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
