2018 Page 11 44. In MSK Projects (I) (JV) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan

10 SCC 573Reported decision2011#21789 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing 2018 Page 11 44. In MSK Projects (I) (JV) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan

M/s Durga Granites vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1

ITTA/30/2023HC Telangana04 Sept 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

…for augmenting the State's revenue. 16. It is also submitted that the ratio laid down in the case of Devi Dayal Singh (Supra.) has subsequently been followed in the case of MSK Projects India (JV) Limited vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in (2011)10 SCC 573, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that toll fee is compensatory in nature which can be collected by the State to reimburse itself the amount spent by it on construction of the road/bridge, etc. It has further been held that the State is competent to levy/collect the toll fee only for the period stipulated under the statute or till t…

Pro Commissioner of Income Tax (Central - 2) vs. Tanvir Collections Pvt. Ltd

ITA/264/2018HC Delhi28 Feb 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 34

…it is found that there exists any bar on the fact of the award.” O.M.P. (COMM.) 264/2018 Page 11 44. In MSK Projects (I) (JV) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, (2011)10 SCC 573: 2012 3 SCC (Civ) 818, the Court held : (SCC pp. 581-82, para 17) “17. If the arbitrator commits an error in the construction of the contract, that is an error within his jurisdiction. But if he wanders outside the contract and deals with matters not allotted to him, he commits a jurisdictional error. Extrinsic evidence is admissible in s…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, New Delhi vs. Dhara Vegetable Oil & Foods Co. Ltd.(Now Merged With Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Ltd.)

ITA/71/2018HC Delhi23 Jan 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 34

…rbitrator had the jurisdiction, no further question shall be raised and the court will not exercise its jurisdiction unless it is found that there exists any bar on the fact of the award.” 44. In MSK Projects (I) (JV) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, (2011)10 SCC 573: 2012 3 SCC (Civ) 818, the Court held : (SCC pp. 581-82, para 17) “17. If the arbitrator commits an error in the construction of the contract, that is an error within his jurisdiction. But if he wanders outside the contract and deals with matters not allotted to him, he commits a jurisdictional error. Extrinsic evidence is admissible in su…