Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Scientific research association approval requires continuing SIRO status, annual donation reporting, and donor certificates for the approved foundatio...
Scientific research institution approval is conditional on SIRO recognition, annual donation reporting, donor certification, and prescribed compliance...
Page of 4878
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 97553 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court acquitted the petitioner of the charge u/s 278 of the Income Tax Act for abetting the filing of false returns. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the foundational facts of abetment by the petitioner of the assessee Munilal Devi. The non-examination of Munilal Devi as a witness was crucial, as her reply in the show cause notice blaming the petitioner could not be tested through cross-examination. The presumption of culpable mental state u/s 278E could not be invoked without proving the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted and discharged.
The High Court acquitted the petitioner of the charge u/s 278 of the Income Tax Act for abetting the filing of false returns. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the foundational facts of abetment by the petitioner of the assessee Munilal Devi. The non-examination of Munilal Devi as a witness was crucial, as her reply in the show cause notice blaming the petitioner could not be tested through cross-examination. The presumption of culpable mental state u/s 278E could not be invoked without proving the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted and discharged.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4878 
