13. In Continental Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of M.P

3 SCC 82Reported decision1987#1326 most cited

What is 13. In Continental Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of M.P authority for?

An arbitrator, not being a conciliator, must decide disputes according to law and cannot ignore or misapply it to achieve what they deem just and reasonable. A court can set aside an arbitrator's award if an error of law appears on the face of the award.

86

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2021.

Also referred to as

Continental Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of M.P. · 3 SCC 82 · arbitrator's duty · arbitration award · error on face of award · arbitrator ignoring law · setting aside arbitration award · judicial review of award · adherence to law by arbitrator

Judgments citing 13. In Continental Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of M.P

M/S Sobha Limited vs. State of Karnataka

WP/28992/2019HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

…gal proposition that in matters of imposition of tax or fees, the question of necessary intendment may be looked into when there is no express provision for imposition of fee or tax. The other decision in Khargram Panchayat Samiti 272 case [(1987) 3 SCC 82] also deals with the exercise of incidental and consequential power in the field of administrative law and the same does not deal with the power of imposing tax and fee.” 8. The High Court has referred to the decisions of this Court in Hingir case [AIR 1961 SC 459 : (1961) 2 SCR 537] and Jagannath Ramanuj case [AIR 1954 SC 400 :…

M/S. Sumadhura Infracon Pvt. Ltd vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/12522/2018HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

…gal proposition that in matters of imposition of tax or fees, the question of necessary intendment may be looked into when there is no express provision for imposition of fee or tax. The other decision in Khargram Panchayat Samiti 272 case [(1987) 3 SCC 82] also deals with the exercise of incidental and consequential power in the field of administrative law and the same does not deal with the power of imposing tax and fee.” 8. The High Court has referred to the decisions of this Court in Hingir case [AIR 1961 SC 459 : (1961) 2 SCR 537] and Jagannath Ramanuj case [AIR 1954 SC 400 :…

Pr. Commissioner of I. Tax-Delhi-2 vs. M/S Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd

ITA/486/2016HC Delhi01 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 34

…court cannot find, on construction of the contract, an implied term OMP (Comm.) No. 486 of 2016 Page 15 of 16 inconsistent with such express term. 13. In Continental Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of M.P., (1988) 3 SCC 82, it was emphasised that not being a conciliator, an arbitrator cannot ignore the law or misapply it in order to do what he thinks is just and reasonable. He is a tribunal selected by the parties to decide their disputes according to law and so is bound to follow and apply the law, and if he does not, he can be set right by the court provided h…

Gmr Power Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal viz

ITA 1072/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & M/S.Gmr Power Corporation Ltd. 25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Bangalore. … Appellant Pan:Aaacg 6037 G Vs. 1. Addl.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore … Respondent & (By The Revenue) ******** Assessee By: Shri Yogesh A Thar, Ca. Revenue By: Smt.Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr).

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 57Section 57(111)

…d not for business purpose of the assessee during the year under consideration. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following judgments: 1. Continental Construction Ltd. vs. CIT (195 ITR 81)(SC) 2. DCIT vs. Prestige Garden Construction P.Ltd.(67 SOT 139) 3. H.K.Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (211 ITR 511) (Guj.) 4. India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT 60 ITR 52 (SC) 5.3 On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative has relied upon the finding of the AO as well as the CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee failed to prove that interest claim was wholly and exclusively utilised in respect of ‘inc…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Gmr Power Corporation Ltd., (Formerly Known As Gmr Power Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal viz

ITA 1629/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & M/S.Gmr Power Corporation Ltd. 25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Bangalore. … Appellant Pan:Aaacg 6037 G Vs. 1. Addl.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore … Respondent & (By The Revenue) ******** Assessee By: Shri Yogesh A Thar, Ca. Revenue By: Smt.Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr).

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 57Section 57(111)

…d not for business purpose of the assessee during the year under consideration. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following judgments: 1. Continental Construction Ltd. vs. CIT (195 ITR 81)(SC) 2. DCIT vs. Prestige Garden Construction P.Ltd.(67 SOT 139) 3. H.K.Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (211 ITR 511) (Guj.) 4. India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT 60 ITR 52 (SC) 5.3 On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative has relied upon the finding of the AO as well as the CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee failed to prove that interest claim was wholly and exclusively utilised in respect of ‘inc…

Gmr Power Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal viz

ITA 1556/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & M/S.Gmr Power Corporation Ltd. 25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Bangalore. … Appellant Pan:Aaacg 6037 G Vs. 1. Addl.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bangalore … Respondent & (By The Revenue) ******** Assessee By: Shri Yogesh A Thar, Ca. Revenue By: Smt.Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr).

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 57Section 57(111)

…d not for business purpose of the assessee during the year under consideration. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following judgments: 1. Continental Construction Ltd. vs. CIT (195 ITR 81)(SC) 2. DCIT vs. Prestige Garden Construction P.Ltd.(67 SOT 139) 3. H.K.Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (211 ITR 511) (Guj.) 4. India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT 60 ITR 52 (SC) 5.3 On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative has relied upon the finding of the AO as well as the CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee failed to prove that interest claim was wholly and exclusively utilised in respect of ‘inc…