Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Exempt-income expenditure disallowance is confined to investments that actually generated exempt income, while supported business expenses remain dedu...
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 
