Jurisdictional sanction requirements bar reassessment when approval comes from an authority lacking statutory competence under the applicable framewor...
Recorded sales receipts cannot be reassessed as unexplained cash credits, eliminating the basis for consequential alleged commission expenditure addit...
Sufficient cause for delayed income-tax appeals requires bona fide diligence; unsubstantiated counsel illness and assessee inaction defeat condonation...
TNMM Segmentation Limits Transfer-Pricing Adjustments to Associated-Enterprise Transactions and Requires Turnover-Based Comparable Selection for IT Se...
Internal TNMM supports deletion of freight-forwarding adjustments where comparable non-AE transactions are separately identifiable and materially simi...
The HC allowed the petitioner's application, holding that the question of entitlement to specific performance or refund under the contract, including claims arising from the respondents' failure to deliver flats and parking spaces, falls within the jurisdiction of the learned Arbitrator. The court found the dispute not to be ex facie time-barred or barred by limitation, emphasizing that construction contracts do not generally regard time as the essence. The petitioner's claim for refund and penalty, as acknowledged by the respondents in a December 15, 2020 letter, was held to potentially give rise to a fresh cause of action. The HC declined to dismiss the petition solely on the basis of an earlier alleged default date, directing that the Arbitrator consider the arbitrability, limitation, and admissibility of the claims, and provide the petitioner an opportunity to present evidence. The application was accordingly allowed.
The HC allowed the petitioner's application, holding that the question of entitlement to specific performance or refund under the contract, including claims arising from the respondents' failure to deliver flats and parking spaces, falls within the jurisdiction of the learned Arbitrator. The court found the dispute not to be ex facie time-barred or barred by limitation, emphasizing that construction contracts do not generally regard time as the essence. The petitioner's claim for refund and penalty, as acknowledged by the respondents in a December 15, 2020 letter, was held to potentially give rise to a fresh cause of action. The HC declined to dismiss the petition solely on the basis of an earlier alleged default date, directing that the Arbitrator consider the arbitrability, limitation, and admissibility of the claims, and provide the petitioner an opportunity to present evidence. The application was accordingly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
