Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The SC held that the respondent did not qualify as a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, due to lack of privity of contract with the appellant. The appellant's liability, if any existed, was limited to what was stipulated in the Home Loan Agreement with the borrower, and specifically to satisfying the complainant-respondent's dues with ICICI Bank (quantified at Rs.17,87,763/- and not exceeding Rs.23,40,000/-). The NCDRC erred in holding the appellant liable for Rs.31,00,000/-. Additionally, the NCDRC failed to properly address the significant delay in filing the complaint (filed in 2018 for a cause of action from 2008) by neither providing reasons nor issuing a formal order condoning the delay. Appeal allowed.
The SC held that the respondent did not qualify as a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, due to lack of privity of contract with the appellant. The appellant's liability, if any existed, was limited to what was stipulated in the Home Loan Agreement with the borrower, and specifically to satisfying the complainant-respondent's dues with ICICI Bank (quantified at Rs.17,87,763/- and not exceeding Rs.23,40,000/-). The NCDRC erred in holding the appellant liable for Rs.31,00,000/-. Additionally, the NCDRC failed to properly address the significant delay in filing the complaint (filed in 2018 for a cause of action from 2008) by neither providing reasons nor issuing a formal order condoning the delay. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
