Transfer pricing comparables and adjustments: Tribunal revisits loss-maker status, segmental comparability, working capital relief, and risk allocatio...
Business expenditure disallowance failed where commission, related-party salary and promotion payments were supported by records and inquiry was inade...
Sections 223 to 228 of the BNSS were held applicable to PMLA complaints before the Special Court, because Sections 46 and 65 of the PMLA permit CrPC/BNSS procedure unless expressly excluded or inconsistent, and no such inconsistency was found. The Court held that an inquiry under the savings clause requires a judicial act applying mind, so merely filing or numbering a complaint does not save pre-BNSS procedure. The first proviso to Section 223(1) gives the accused a mandatory right to be heard before cognizance; taking cognizance after the BNSS commenced without that hearing was an illegality that vitiated the order. The impugned cognizance order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the accused.
Sections 223 to 228 of the BNSS were held applicable to PMLA complaints before the Special Court, because Sections 46 and 65 of the PMLA permit CrPC/BNSS procedure unless expressly excluded or inconsistent, and no such inconsistency was found. The Court held that an inquiry under the savings clause requires a judicial act applying mind, so merely filing or numbering a complaint does not save pre-BNSS procedure. The first proviso to Section 223(1) gives the accused a mandatory right to be heard before cognizance; taking cognizance after the BNSS commenced without that hearing was an illegality that vitiated the order. The impugned cognizance order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the accused.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
