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...
SC upheld the arbitral tribunal's decision allowing liquidated damages deduction from the appellant's contractual dues. The court determined that the respondent validly imposed damages at 0.5% per week for a delay exceeding ten months, primarily attributable to the appellant. Interpreting Sections 55, 73, and 74 of the Contract Act, the court affirmed that the liquidated damages were legally and contractually valid. The Single Judge's order setting aside the arbitral award was deemed to have exceeded jurisdictional limits under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The Division Bench's restoration of the original arbitral award was consequently upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
SC upheld the arbitral tribunal's decision allowing liquidated damages deduction from the appellant's contractual dues. The court determined that the respondent validly imposed damages at 0.5% per week for a delay exceeding ten months, primarily attributable to the appellant. Interpreting Sections 55, 73, and 74 of the Contract Act, the court affirmed that the liquidated damages were legally and contractually valid. The Single Judge's order setting aside the arbitral award was deemed to have exceeded jurisdictional limits under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The Division Bench's restoration of the original arbitral award was consequently upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
