Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.