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 HC set aside the Appellate Award as time-barred under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for violating public policy. The reconstituted Appellate Tribunal exceeded the mandatory three-month timeframe prescribed under NSE Bye-Law 19(b) and SEBI Circular Clause 6.5, passing the award beyond the permissible extension period without proper authorization. The court held that limitation periods in arbitration serve public policy by ensuring expeditious dispute resolution, and the use of "shall" in the bye-laws creates mandatory timelines. The petitioner's filing of written submissions did not constitute waiver of objection rights to the tribunal's mandate, and excessive delays contravene arbitration's fundamental purpose of swift justice.
The HC set aside the Appellate Award as time-barred under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for violating public policy. The reconstituted Appellate Tribunal exceeded the mandatory three-month timeframe prescribed under NSE Bye-Law 19(b) and SEBI Circular Clause 6.5, passing the award beyond the permissible extension period without proper authorization. The court held that limitation periods in arbitration serve public policy by ensuring expeditious dispute resolution, and the use of "shall" in the bye-laws creates mandatory timelines. The petitioner's filing of written submissions did not constitute waiver of objection rights to the tribunal's mandate, and excessive delays contravene arbitration's fundamental purpose of swift justice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
