Donor-directed corpus contributions retain capital character despite exemption claims under section 10(23C)(vi), preventing their treatment as taxable...
Enhanced tax-audit threshold applies where banking records establish compliant non-cash receipts and payments, eliminating penalty exposure for audit ...
Transfer pricing consistency protects identical non-interest-bearing debenture terms from a later notional-interest adjustment without valid statutory...
Rectification of debatable deduction claims cannot reverse scrutiny-approved co-operative society interest income deductions as apparent record errors...
Cash-method accounting bars presumptive interest taxation, while unsupported securities and share-trading additions require reliable material and veri...
The High Court rejected the application filed by the petitioners u/s 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby refusing to discharge them and quash the complaint regarding excess drawback amount demand by the Additional Commissioner of Customs. The court held that since the revision filed by the respondent against the original order dated 30.09.2013 is pending consideration before the Revisional Authority, no purpose would be served by allowing the complainant to proceed against the petitioners. However, discharging the accused on the ground that the original order is set aside would deprive the respondent of the right to prosecute based on that order. Consequently, the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru, was directed to stop further proceedings against the petitioners for the present, with liberty to the respondent to revive the complaint upon final adjudication of the dispute by the Revisional Authority, i.e., the Principal Commissioner RA and Ex-Officio Additional Secretary to the Government of India. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
The High Court rejected the application filed by the petitioners u/s 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby refusing to discharge them and quash the complaint regarding excess drawback amount demand by the Additional Commissioner of Customs. The court held that since the revision filed by the respondent against the original order dated 30.09.2013 is pending consideration before the Revisional Authority, no purpose would be served by allowing the complainant to proceed against the petitioners. However, discharging the accused on the ground that the original order is set aside would deprive the respondent of the right to prosecute based on that order. Consequently, the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru, was directed to stop further proceedings against the petitioners for the present, with liberty to the respondent to revive the complaint upon final adjudication of the dispute by the Revisional Authority, i.e., the Principal Commissioner RA and Ex-Officio Additional Secretary to the Government of India. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
