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 a statutory board cannot nullify the State's eminent domain power by entering into a private agreement to return compulsorily acquired land. The Court emphasized that without a formal conveyance document transferring the land from the government to the Board, the Board had no absolute rights over the property. The agreement dated 30.09.1988 was deemed contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law as it attempted to reverse a sovereign acquisition for public purpose. The Court noted suspicious circumstances surrounding the agreement's preparation before Board approval. The arbitral award upholding this agreement was invalid, and lower courts erred in not setting it aside under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Appeal allowed.
The SC held that a statutory board cannot nullify the State's eminent domain power by entering into a private agreement to return compulsorily acquired land. The Court emphasized that without a formal conveyance document transferring the land from the government to the Board, the Board had no absolute rights over the property. The agreement dated 30.09.1988 was deemed contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law as it attempted to reverse a sovereign acquisition for public purpose. The Court noted suspicious circumstances surrounding the agreement's preparation before Board approval. The arbitral award upholding this agreement was invalid, and lower courts erred in not setting it aside under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.