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" ?
The case involves a petition to quash proceedings u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to failure to implead the company as an accused. The petitioner, a Managing Director, was accused of issuing a cheque on behalf of the company. The court found non-maintainability of the complaint against the petitioner as the company was not made an accused despite the cheque being issued on its behalf. Citing the Himanshu vs. B. Shivamurthy case, the court allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner. The court emphasized the importance of impleading the company in cases involving cheques issued on its behalf. Following the Five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in expeditious trial of cases, the High Court held that, it is clear that Section 202(2) CrPC is not applicable in the present proceedings which is u/s 138 N.I. Act.
The case involves a petition to quash proceedings u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to failure to implead the company as an accused. The petitioner, a Managing Director, was accused of issuing a cheque on behalf of the company. The court found non-maintainability of the complaint against the petitioner as the company was not made an accused despite the cheque being issued on its behalf. Citing the Himanshu vs. B. Shivamurthy case, the court allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner. The court emphasized the importance of impleading the company in cases involving cheques issued on its behalf. Following the Five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in expeditious trial of cases, the High Court held that, it is clear that Section 202(2) CrPC is not applicable in the present proceedings which is u/s 138 N.I. Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
