Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
SC upheld the dismissal of the appellants' S.37 appeal, affirming the S.34 order and the arbitral award granting interest, including post-award interest, at 24% p.a. SC reiterated that under S.31(7)(a) the arbitral tribunal may award pre-award interest subject to contractual terms, while under S.31(7)(b) post-award interest is mandatory, with only the rate being discretionary; absent a specified rate, the statutory rate applies. The contractual rate of 24% p.a. was held not to offend public policy under S.34(2)(b), as exorbitance of interest alone does not constitute violation of the fundamental policy of Indian law unless it is shockingly perverse. The challenge based on the Usurious Loans Act, 1918 and related legislation was rejected. The appeal was dismissed.
SC upheld the dismissal of the appellants' S.37 appeal, affirming the S.34 order and the arbitral award granting interest, including post-award interest, at 24% p.a. SC reiterated that under S.31(7)(a) the arbitral tribunal may award pre-award interest subject to contractual terms, while under S.31(7)(b) post-award interest is mandatory, with only the rate being discretionary; absent a specified rate, the statutory rate applies. The contractual rate of 24% p.a. was held not to offend public policy under S.34(2)(b), as exorbitance of interest alone does not constitute violation of the fundamental policy of Indian law unless it is shockingly perverse. The challenge based on the Usurious Loans Act, 1918 and related legislation was rejected. The appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
