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...
Issue was whether a fire insurance policy could be repudiated on the ground that burglary/theft preceded and allegedly caused the fire. The Court held that where loss is attributable to fire and there is no plea or proof of wilful act, foul play, or fraud by the insured, the cause of the fire is immaterial for coverage. Theft/burglary was not an exclusion under the specified peril of "Fire", and exclusions must be strictly construed; an exclusion under another clause could not defeat liability for an independently covered peril. The repudiation letter and the rejection order were set aside, and the matter was remitted for assessment of loss. - SC
Issue was whether a fire insurance policy could be repudiated on the ground that burglary/theft preceded and allegedly caused the fire. The Court held that where loss is attributable to fire and there is no plea or proof of wilful act, foul play, or fraud by the insured, the cause of the fire is immaterial for coverage. Theft/burglary was not an exclusion under the specified peril of "Fire", and exclusions must be strictly construed; an exclusion under another clause could not defeat liability for an independently covered peril. The repudiation letter and the rejection order were set aside, and the matter was remitted for assessment of loss. - SC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.