Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
The SC allowed the appeal, set aside the HC's order and restored the execution court's position, holding that the arbitral award-drafted in conformity with the parties' MoU-did not grant compound interest and accordingly cannot be supplemented at execution. Under s.31(7)(a)/(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, party autonomy governs interest from cause of action to award date and the tribunal's discretion under clause (a) exists only in the absence of contrary agreement; clause (b) is contingent on an award. Because the tribunal awarded interest only until repayment and the MoU did not provide for compounding, the respondent's claim for compound interest in execution was rejected.
The SC allowed the appeal, set aside the HC's order and restored the execution court's position, holding that the arbitral award-drafted in conformity with the parties' MoU-did not grant compound interest and accordingly cannot be supplemented at execution. Under s.31(7)(a)/(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, party autonomy governs interest from cause of action to award date and the tribunal's discretion under clause (a) exists only in the absence of contrary agreement; clause (b) is contingent on an award. Because the tribunal awarded interest only until repayment and the MoU did not provide for compounding, the respondent's claim for compound interest in execution was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
