Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The SC allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and held that the respondents are estopped by conduct from impeaching a compromise deed entered pursuant to an arbitral award. The Court found the respondents had invoked civil jurisdiction, asserted the suit was not barred by Section 92, accepted the award and procured disposal of their appeal on terms of the compromise deed; they cannot subsequently repudiate its validity. Applying estoppel by conduct and election, the compromise-deed-derived decree must stand, and the appellants are entitled to revive execution proceedings. Consequently the respondents' challenge to the award/compromise as a nullity was rejected.
The SC allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and held that the respondents are estopped by conduct from impeaching a compromise deed entered pursuant to an arbitral award. The Court found the respondents had invoked civil jurisdiction, asserted the suit was not barred by Section 92, accepted the award and procured disposal of their appeal on terms of the compromise deed; they cannot subsequently repudiate its validity. Applying estoppel by conduct and election, the compromise-deed-derived decree must stand, and the appellants are entitled to revive execution proceedings. Consequently the respondents' challenge to the award/compromise as a nullity was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
