Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
501 to 520 of 96363 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Inadvertent error by bank officials ignoring restraint orders led to FIR against bank officials for offences under IPC provisions. Continuation of criminal proceedings questioned. Held: FIR did not show bank induced anyone fraudulently or dishonestly, lacking mens rea required for offences u/ss 420, 406, 409, 462 IPC. No entrustment of property misappropriated by bank. Sections 206, 217, 201 IPC requiring mens rea not applicable. No common intention or cooperation by bank in alleged offences, hence Sections 34, 37, 120B IPC inapplicable. Case falls under categories exempting quashing per Bhajan Lal case. Continuation would cause undue hardship. High Court order quashed.
Inadvertent error by bank officials ignoring restraint orders led to FIR against bank officials for offences under IPC provisions. Continuation of criminal proceedings questioned. Held: FIR did not show bank induced anyone fraudulently or dishonestly, lacking mens rea required for offences u/ss 420, 406, 409, 462 IPC. No entrustment of property misappropriated by bank. Sections 206, 217, 201 IPC requiring mens rea not applicable. No common intention or cooperation by bank in alleged offences, hence Sections 34, 37, 120B IPC inapplicable. Case falls under categories exempting quashing per Bhajan Lal case. Continuation would cause undue hardship. High Court order quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
