Penalty under section 271(1)(c) deleted where income was disclosed in section 153A returns and remaining additions were only estimated or computationa...
The HC upheld the tribunal's rejection of limitation, holding that the cause of action arose when the additional cost crossed the contractual threshold and the claim was thereafter pursued through the contractual mechanism and arbitration. However, it set aside the award for patent illegality and want of reasons because the claimant produced no evidence of actual tax payment at the enhanced rates, no proof of the contractual annual deduction, and a claim statement could not itself prove the claim. The tribunal also failed to consider the material defence that service tax was not leviable under the relied-upon notifications, rendering the award unreasoned and unsustainable.
The HC upheld the tribunal's rejection of limitation, holding that the cause of action arose when the additional cost crossed the contractual threshold and the claim was thereafter pursued through the contractual mechanism and arbitration. However, it set aside the award for patent illegality and want of reasons because the claimant produced no evidence of actual tax payment at the enhanced rates, no proof of the contractual annual deduction, and a claim statement could not itself prove the claim. The tribunal also failed to consider the material defence that service tax was not leviable under the relied-upon notifications, rendering the award unreasoned and unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
