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 upheld that the partnership did not automatically dissolve upon the death of a partner, as Section 42 of the Partnership Act applies only to two-partner firms. Here, the partnership involved three partners, and the deed explicitly allowed continuation despite a partner's death. The Dealership Agreement empowered IOCL to either continue, reconstitute, or terminate the dealership upon such death. IOCL had not terminated the agreement but refused to recognize the reconstituted firm including the surviving partners and one heir, citing non-participation by all heirs. The SC found IOCL misconstrued its guidelines by denying recognition without valid grounds. Consequently, the partnership was deemed to continue lawfully, and the High Court's order upholding this was affirmed. The special leave petition was dismissed.
The SC upheld that the partnership did not automatically dissolve upon the death of a partner, as Section 42 of the Partnership Act applies only to two-partner firms. Here, the partnership involved three partners, and the deed explicitly allowed continuation despite a partner's death. The Dealership Agreement empowered IOCL to either continue, reconstitute, or terminate the dealership upon such death. IOCL had not terminated the agreement but refused to recognize the reconstituted firm including the surviving partners and one heir, citing non-participation by all heirs. The SC found IOCL misconstrued its guidelines by denying recognition without valid grounds. Consequently, the partnership was deemed to continue lawfully, and the High Court's order upholding this was affirmed. The special leave petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
