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" ?
This case pertains to the dishonor of cheques and the liability of the petitioners u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court held that since the petitioners were neither partners of the partnership firm nor signatories to the instruments in question, initiating proceedings against them u/s 138 amounted to an abuse of the court process. The court emphasized that when a cheque is signed by an authorized signatory of a partnership firm, prosecution u/s 138 can only be instituted against those in charge and responsible for the firm's business conduct at the relevant time. Consequently, the High Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners in the lower court.
This case pertains to the dishonor of cheques and the liability of the petitioners u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court held that since the petitioners were neither partners of the partnership firm nor signatories to the instruments in question, initiating proceedings against them u/s 138 amounted to an abuse of the court process. The court emphasized that when a cheque is signed by an authorized signatory of a partnership firm, prosecution u/s 138 can only be instituted against those in charge and responsible for the firm's business conduct at the relevant time. Consequently, the High Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners in the lower court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
