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" ?
Dishonor of Cheque - Admittedly, the present petitioner neither signed the cheque in question nor signed nor witnessed the Distributorship Agreement. In fact, it has not even been averred that the petitioner was even present at the time of signing the agreement. The person who has signed the cheque in question and the Distributorship Agreement - husband of the petitioner as well as the company have also been summoned as accused in the complaint case along with the present petitioner. The present petition has been filed only on behalf of the petitioner. - Thus, necessary ingredients required to constitute the offence under Section 141 of the N.I. Act qua the present petitioner are not satisfied - HC
Dishonor of Cheque - Admittedly, the present petitioner neither signed the cheque in question nor signed nor witnessed the Distributorship Agreement. In fact, it has not even been averred that the petitioner was even present at the time of signing the agreement. The person who has signed the cheque in question and the Distributorship Agreement - husband of the petitioner as well as the company have also been summoned as accused in the complaint case along with the present petitioner. The present petition has been filed only on behalf of the petitioner. - Thus, necessary ingredients required to constitute the offence under Section 141 of the N.I. Act qua the present petitioner are not satisfied - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
