Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Dishonour of cheque - vicarious liability - liability of group companies - liability common Directors of the group, namely, Right Choice Group of Companies - Lifting of the corporate veil - The High court highlighted that for vicarious liability to apply, specific allegations and evidence pointing to the role and control of the individuals over the company’s operations are necessary. The judgment delved into the principle of the corporate veil, stating that mere affiliation of companies under the same group does not suffice to establish liability unless it is shown that they function as one economic entity. The court declined to lift the corporate veil merely based on group association and common branding in marketing materials.
Dishonour of cheque - vicarious liability - liability of group companies - liability common Directors of the group, namely, Right Choice Group of Companies - Lifting of the corporate veil - The High court highlighted that for vicarious liability to apply, specific allegations and evidence pointing to the role and control of the individuals over the company’s operations are necessary. The judgment delved into the principle of the corporate veil, stating that mere affiliation of companies under the same group does not suffice to establish liability unless it is shown that they function as one economic entity. The court declined to lift the corporate veil merely based on group association and common branding in marketing materials.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.