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...
A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed through a power of attorney holder was not liable to fail merely because the complaint did not expressly plead the holder's direct personal knowledge. The Court treated the objection as an irregularity in institution, to be tested under Section 465 CrPC, and found no failure of justice because the complainant later entered the witness box, deposed to the transaction, and the accused had full opportunity to cross-examine. The conviction was therefore sustained. On sentence, the Court reduced the substantive custodial term in view of the nature and gravity of the offence, while maintaining the compensation and default clause, and substituted imprisonment till the rising of the court.
A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed through a power of attorney holder was not liable to fail merely because the complaint did not expressly plead the holder's direct personal knowledge. The Court treated the objection as an irregularity in institution, to be tested under Section 465 CrPC, and found no failure of justice because the complainant later entered the witness box, deposed to the transaction, and the accused had full opportunity to cross-examine. The conviction was therefore sustained. On sentence, the Court reduced the substantive custodial term in view of the nature and gravity of the offence, while maintaining the compensation and default clause, and substituted imprisonment till the rising of the court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.