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...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
The petitioner-accused and the complainant-respondent settled the matter related to dishonor of cheque. The High Court accepted the prayer for compounding the offence u/s 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, following the Supreme Court's guidelines in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. Noting the non-obstante clause in Section 147, the Court held that compounding is controlled by this provision, not Section 320 of CrPC. Relying on K. Subramanian v. R. Rajathi, the Court allowed compounding even after conviction. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were quashed, and the petitioner-accused was acquitted u/s 138 of the Act.
The petitioner-accused and the complainant-respondent settled the matter related to dishonor of cheque. The High Court accepted the prayer for compounding the offence u/s 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, following the Supreme Court's guidelines in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. Noting the non-obstante clause in Section 147, the Court held that compounding is controlled by this provision, not Section 320 of CrPC. Relying on K. Subramanian v. R. Rajathi, the Court allowed compounding even after conviction. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were quashed, and the petitioner-accused was acquitted u/s 138 of the Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
