https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98541 A High Court, exercising limited Section 34 review, sustained the arbitrator's view that extensions of time justified corresponding rescheduling of milestones, so release of the withheld milestone amount was proper. It quashed interest on that withheld amount because the contract imposed an absolute bar on any interest. The court corrected the final bill figure to reflect an admitted clerical error. It also disallowed the post-GST differential tax claim for lack of proof of actual payment and annulled prolongation damages for want of able loss under Section 73. The refund of penalty for delay in the sample flat, along with interest other than on the withheld amount and costs, was maintained. en-us Wed, 08 Apr 2026 08:56:59 +0530 Wed, 08 Apr 2026 08:56:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98541 A High Court, exercising limited Section 34 review, sustained the arbitrator's view that extensions of time justified corresponding rescheduling of milestones, so release of the withheld milestone amount was proper. It quashed interest on that withheld amount because the contract imposed an absolute bar on any interest. The court corrected the final bill figure to reflect an admitted clerical error. It also disallowed the post-GST differential tax claim for lack of proof of actual payment and annulled prolongation damages for want of able loss under Section 73. The refund of penalty for delay in the sample flat, along with interest other than on the withheld amount and costs, was maintained. Highlights Indian Laws Wed, 08 Apr 2026 08:56:59 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98541