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 court interpreted Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding that managing directors and joint managing directors are responsible for the company's conduct by virtue of their position. Signatories of dishonored checks are also covered u/s 141(2). In the absence of averments u/s 50(1) of the 1984 Act in the complaint, the trial court could not take cognizance against the directors. However, the managing director would be responsible for the company's business. The complaint was quashed against the directors but allowed against the managing director and the company. The Supreme Court's order was modified accordingly.
The court interpreted Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding that managing directors and joint managing directors are responsible for the company's conduct by virtue of their position. Signatories of dishonored checks are also covered u/s 141(2). In the absence of averments u/s 50(1) of the 1984 Act in the complaint, the trial court could not take cognizance against the directors. However, the managing director would be responsible for the company's business. The complaint was quashed against the directors but allowed against the managing director and the company. The Supreme Court's order was modified accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.