Co-operative society's mandatory reserve and share capital fixed deposits with banks-interest treated as business income under 80P(2)(a)(iii) deductio...
Income tax reassessment reopening after four years on investigation tip, without s.147 proviso disclosure failure, struck down as borrowed satisfactio...
Arbitrator exceeded contractual scope by creating a non-existent clause to deduct shortfall in Minimum Guaranteed CENVAT Credit (MGCC) from invoices; the correct legal principle is that arbitrators must decide within the four corners of the contract and cannot add terms. The arbitrator wrongly treated the tax component as excluded from MGCC and failed to apply clause 14.5.2 correctly, which only denies reimbursement if documents to avail CENVAT are not produced. Because the arbitrator ventured beyond contractual terms and committed patent illegality, the arbitral award was set aside.
Arbitrator exceeded contractual scope by creating a non-existent clause to deduct shortfall in Minimum Guaranteed CENVAT Credit (MGCC) from invoices; the correct legal principle is that arbitrators must decide within the four corners of the contract and cannot add terms. The arbitrator wrongly treated the tax component as excluded from MGCC and failed to apply clause 14.5.2 correctly, which only denies reimbursement if documents to avail CENVAT are not produced. Because the arbitrator ventured beyond contractual terms and committed patent illegality, the arbitral award was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
