ESOP expenditure allowed as FMV difference; long-term capital gain issue sent back for collector rate determination; deferred income additions disallo...
Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed as regulator failed to prove nexus or manipulative scheme; sale genuine - s.12A(a)-(c), Regs 3(a)-(d),4(1),4(2)...
Appellant's ring-back tone service held OIDAR, taxable domestically for 01.07.2012-31.07.2016; liability confirmed, penalties vacated, remanded for re...
SC allowed the appeal and, exercising jurisdiction under Art.142, declined to set aside the arbitral award; instead the Court validated the impugned sale deeds to avoid relitigation and third-party prejudice. The Company (Appellant) was penalized by forfeiture of security deposits of Rs.6.82 crores and directed to pay Rs.3.18 crores to the Respondents for completion works, aggregating Rs.10 crores. The Court held that delay in pronouncement alone does not automatically vitiate an award, but an unexplained undue delay that adversely affects tribunal findings can render an award contrary to public policy and patently illegal under s.34(2)(b)(ii)/s.34(2A), permitting interference. Parties anonymized.
SC allowed the appeal and, exercising jurisdiction under Art.142, declined to set aside the arbitral award; instead the Court validated the impugned sale deeds to avoid relitigation and third-party prejudice. The Company (Appellant) was penalized by forfeiture of security deposits of Rs.6.82 crores and directed to pay Rs.3.18 crores to the Respondents for completion works, aggregating Rs.10 crores. The Court held that delay in pronouncement alone does not automatically vitiate an award, but an unexplained undue delay that adversely affects tribunal findings can render an award contrary to public policy and patently illegal under s.34(2)(b)(ii)/s.34(2A), permitting interference. Parties anonymized.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
