https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470420 Arbitral jurisdiction extended de novo to claims whose quantum differed from that presented to the Commissioner because the arbitration clause authorised the arbitrator to open, review and revise those decisions and did not restrict the parties to their earlier evidence or arguments. However, arbitral procedure had to comply with natural justice despite the Evidence Act not strictly applying. Receiving disputed documents over objection without proof by competent persons or an effective opportunity to test their authenticity, contents and evidentiary value constituted legal misconduct. The non-speaking award could not stand, and the affected claims required fresh determination by the arbitrator. en-us Wed, 24 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Jul 2026 17:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470420 Arbitral jurisdiction extended de novo to claims whose quantum differed from that presented to the Commissioner because the arbitration clause authorised the arbitrator to open, review and revise those decisions and did not restrict the parties to their earlier evidence or arguments. However, arbitral procedure had to comply with natural justice despite the Evidence Act not strictly applying. Receiving disputed documents over objection without proof by competent persons or an effective opportunity to test their authenticity, contents and evidentiary value constituted legal misconduct. The non-speaking award could not stand, and the affected claims required fresh determination by the arbitrator. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 24 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470420