Pre-amendment reassessment limitation bars late notices under the preserved regime, invalidating consequential reassessment for affected earlier asses...
Cash-sales explanations for bank deposits require documentary reconciliation; reassessment notice survived where effective response time was available...
Functional comparability in transfer pricing prevents ad hoc arm's length adjustments where functions, assets, risks and reliable comparables are unes...
Contingency expenses, exempt-income disallowance, and royalty benchmarking: unsupported adjustments were deleted under consistent accounting and trans...
Arbitral awards on prolongation costs, GST reimbursement, minimum-wage escalation, Environmental Compensation Charges and taxes were upheld under Section 34 because the tribunal had adopted a plausible view on the contract, delay attribution and quantification of damages. The court treated the prolongation-cost methodology as a permissible estimate based on record and industry practice, and refused re-appreciation of evidence. It also sustained reimbursement for GST introduced during the extended period, held that a minimum-wage escalation bar could not defeat compensation for employer-caused delay, and accepted ECC as an additional charge not clearly barred by the exclusion clause. The majority award was treated as binding, and no patent illegality or perversity was shown.
Arbitral awards on prolongation costs, GST reimbursement, minimum-wage escalation, Environmental Compensation Charges and taxes were upheld under Section 34 because the tribunal had adopted a plausible view on the contract, delay attribution and quantification of damages. The court treated the prolongation-cost methodology as a permissible estimate based on record and industry practice, and refused re-appreciation of evidence. It also sustained reimbursement for GST introduced during the extended period, held that a minimum-wage escalation bar could not defeat compensation for employer-caused delay, and accepted ECC as an additional charge not clearly barred by the exclusion clause. The majority award was treated as binding, and no patent illegality or perversity was shown.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
