Charitable registration turns on predominant purpose and genuine activities, while incidental fees and related-party rent require supporting adverse m...
MAT book-profit adjustments exclude disallowances for exempt-income expenditure and demerger expenditure unless expressly listed under the statutory c...
Omitted specified domestic transaction provision invalidates related-party expenditure transfer-pricing references and assessments based on consequent...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Rule 14(24) of the CCS (CCA) Rules does not automatically invalidate disciplinary proceedings merely because an inquiry exceeds the prescribed period without a written extension. Its time prescription is directory because it specifies no abatement or invalidation consequence; intervention requires inordinate unexplained delay, demonstrable prejudice, mala fides, or oppressive proceedings. Deferred promotion during pending proceedings alone is not legal prejudice. Approval of a charge memorandum is valid where the competent disciplinary authority considered the proposal, vigilance advice and relevant records; unsupported allegations of mechanical approval are insufficient. Preliminary fact-finding during deputation is permissible, and judicial review at the charge stage remains limited to jurisdictional error, patent illegality, mala fides, or fundamental statutory violation.
Rule 14(24) of the CCS (CCA) Rules does not automatically invalidate disciplinary proceedings merely because an inquiry exceeds the prescribed period without a written extension. Its time prescription is directory because it specifies no abatement or invalidation consequence; intervention requires inordinate unexplained delay, demonstrable prejudice, mala fides, or oppressive proceedings. Deferred promotion during pending proceedings alone is not legal prejudice. Approval of a charge memorandum is valid where the competent disciplinary authority considered the proposal, vigilance advice and relevant records; unsupported allegations of mechanical approval are insufficient. Preliminary fact-finding during deputation is permissible, and judicial review at the charge stage remains limited to jurisdictional error, patent illegality, mala fides, or fundamental statutory violation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.