https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252455 Under Section 34 review, the SC reiterated that interference with an arbitral award is limited, but correction is possible where the tribunal draws untenable inferences from proved facts or reaches a conclusion causing miscarriage of justice. Applying that principle, the Court held that the entire delay could not be attributed to one party and modified the award to reflect shared responsibility for the relevant periods. On tax deductions, the Court accepted that the turnkey work was executed outside India and that the claimed deductions were not warranted on the facts or under the contract, so that part of the award was sustained. en-us Thu, 04 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Aug 2016 11:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252455 Under Section 34 review, the SC reiterated that interference with an arbitral award is limited, but correction is possible where the tribunal draws untenable inferences from proved facts or reaches a conclusion causing miscarriage of justice. Applying that principle, the Court held that the entire delay could not be attributed to one party and modified the award to reflect shared responsibility for the relevant periods. On tax deductions, the Court accepted that the turnkey work was executed outside India and that the claimed deductions were not warranted on the facts or under the contract, so that part of the award was sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 04 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252455