Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC upheld the arbitral award, finding no grounds for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court determined that the arbitrator's reasoning was legally sound and based on available evidence. The award did not demonstrate patent illegality or violation of public policy. The court emphasized its limited review role, noting it cannot re-appreciate evidence or modify the arbitral award. Consequently, the petition challenging the arbitral award was dismissed, affirming the arbitrator's decision on contractual terms and GST liabilities.
HC upheld the arbitral award, finding no grounds for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court determined that the arbitrator's reasoning was legally sound and based on available evidence. The award did not demonstrate patent illegality or violation of public policy. The court emphasized its limited review role, noting it cannot re-appreciate evidence or modify the arbitral award. Consequently, the petition challenging the arbitral award was dismissed, affirming the arbitrator's decision on contractual terms and GST liabilities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
