Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
