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 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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
