Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
