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...
The SC held that the limitation period for filing objections to an arbitral award under Article 119(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 commences from the date the parties become aware of the existence of the award, not necessarily from the formal notice of filing. The respondents were aware of the award's filing on 21.09.2022 when the District Court directed them to clear fees for furnishing the award. Hence, the limitation expired on 20.10.2022, rendering the appellant's application u/s 17 on 10.11.2022 valid. The parties must scrutinize the award upon becoming aware of its accessibility, and the formal notice date of 18.11.2022 held no significance. The appeal was allowed.
The SC held that the limitation period for filing objections to an arbitral award under Article 119(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 commences from the date the parties become aware of the existence of the award, not necessarily from the formal notice of filing. The respondents were aware of the award's filing on 21.09.2022 when the District Court directed them to clear fees for furnishing the award. Hence, the limitation expired on 20.10.2022, rendering the appellant's application u/s 17 on 10.11.2022 valid. The parties must scrutinize the award upon becoming aware of its accessibility, and the formal notice date of 18.11.2022 held no significance. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.