AMP expenditure for own business is not an international transaction without an associated-enterprise arrangement, eliminating transfer pricing adjust...
Customs valuation must use comparable contemporary imports, while confiscation fines and penalties require proportionate recalculation on reassessed v...
Depositor-protection proceedings prevail over corporate insolvency, while liquidators may recover chit receivables using copies of seized company reco...
Intermediary service classification fails where overseas admission facilitation is supplied independently, preserving export treatment and small-provi...
Satellite transponder bandwidth is telecommunication, not Business Support Service; foreign non-telegraph providers triggered no service tax liability...
Invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C - cognizance of offences on basis of supplementary complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner second time - Regarding the filing of the supplementary complaint, the High Court determined that it was permissible under the law, especially when further investigation uncovers new evidence or implicates additional offenders. - However, concerning the Special Judge's actions in taking cognizance and issuing process based on the supplementary complaint, the High Court found them legally unsustainable. It clarified that cognizance can only be taken once for the same offense and that the court cannot take cognizance again based on a supplementary complaint when proceedings are already underway based on the initial complaint.
Invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C - cognizance of offences on basis of supplementary complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner second time - Regarding the filing of the supplementary complaint, the High Court determined that it was permissible under the law, especially when further investigation uncovers new evidence or implicates additional offenders. - However, concerning the Special Judge's actions in taking cognizance and issuing process based on the supplementary complaint, the High Court found them legally unsustainable. It clarified that cognizance can only be taken once for the same offense and that the court cannot take cognizance again based on a supplementary complaint when proceedings are already underway based on the initial complaint.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.