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...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 95872 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 a writ petition filed by a company invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking directions to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to initiate action against Exclusive Capital Limited under Chapter IIIB of the RBI Act, 1934. The Court held that a writ of mandamus lies when statutory authorities fail to exercise their powers, leading to irreparable harm to statutory rights. Despite repeated reminders, Exclusive Capital Limited's management failed to provide organizational details, statutory compliance records, personnel particulars, and financial statements, indicating mismanagement. The company's reply denied RBI's concerns and claimed the conversion of OCDs into CCPS was to restore leverage ratio, and that RBI regulations were inapplicable. The Court distinguished the Krishnakrupa case, where the High Court refused to interfere in RBI's banking affairs. Finding ample material warranting an inquiry into Exclusive Capital Limited's affairs and RBI's failure to exercise supervisory powers, the Court directed the suspension of the company's Board of Directors until further orders and compliance reporting on 02.12.2024.
This case pertains to a writ petition filed by a company invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking directions to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to initiate action against Exclusive Capital Limited under Chapter IIIB of the RBI Act, 1934. The Court held that a writ of mandamus lies when statutory authorities fail to exercise their powers, leading to irreparable harm to statutory rights. Despite repeated reminders, Exclusive Capital Limited's management failed to provide organizational details, statutory compliance records, personnel particulars, and financial statements, indicating mismanagement. The company's reply denied RBI's concerns and claimed the conversion of OCDs into CCPS was to restore leverage ratio, and that RBI regulations were inapplicable. The Court distinguished the Krishnakrupa case, where the High Court refused to interfere in RBI's banking affairs. Finding ample material warranting an inquiry into Exclusive Capital Limited's affairs and RBI's failure to exercise supervisory powers, the Court directed the suspension of the company's Board of Directors until further orders and compliance reporting on 02.12.2024.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
