rbitral award was set aside partially by the Hon’ble High court on the basis that the arbitrator has clearly exceeded his jurisdiction and has awarded most of the items of claims by either ignoring the terms and conditions of the contract or acting in derogation therefrom.
NCLAT held that Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority cannot be recalled on basis of overruling of the earlier Judgment. Otherwise, the litigation would never come to an end.
Calcutta High Court have allowed appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the issue that the arbitrator has not furnished any arithmetical basis or any documentary evidence to support the claim awarded to the respondent as Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court while dismissing the Writ Petition under Article 226 held that Notice issued by Bank under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 cannot be challenged by invoking Writ jurisdiction as effective alternate remedy has been provided under Section 17 of the Act.
ITAT held that amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/ suppliers, as consideration for resale/use of computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements are not payment of Royalty.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT held that ITR and bank statements were sufficient to prove the genuinety and for creditworthiness under Section 68 of Income Tax Act.
ITAT held that carrying on the statutory functions or activities which is mandate of the law cannot be said to be trade, commerce or business.
B.G. Exploration & Production India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST (CESTAT Mumbai) Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal observed that allowed appeals on the ground that consideration cannot be deciphered out from any clauses of the Contract and without consideration Service Tax cannot be demanded. Facts: The issue involved in these […]
ACIT Vs S.P. Singla Construction P. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 68 Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal dismissed the Revenue appeal under Section 6 of the Income Tax Act and held that that assessee discharged its initial onus to prove the identity of the Investors, their creditworthiness […]
Arihant Tradelinks India Private Limited Vs C.C.E., Kutch (Gandhidham) (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal held that limitation period could not be invoked as the issue involved is purely of interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules, levy of CVD in terms of Customs Tariff Act, therefore malafide intention cannot be […]
