Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that in the demand notice, if the cheque amount and other claimed amounts are mentioned separately, it is a valid notice u/s 138(b) of the NI Act. Non-production of bank statements or IT returns by the complainant does not vitiate the complaint itself. The accused did not deny his signature on the dishonored cheque, fulfilling ingredients u/ss 118 and 139 of the NI Act. The presumption that the cheque was issued for consideration shifts the burden on the accused to rebut it, which he failed. The appeal was allowed.
The HC held that in the demand notice, if the cheque amount and other claimed amounts are mentioned separately, it is a valid notice u/s 138(b) of the NI Act. Non-production of bank statements or IT returns by the complainant does not vitiate the complaint itself. The accused did not deny his signature on the dishonored cheque, fulfilling ingredients u/ss 118 and 139 of the NI Act. The presumption that the cheque was issued for consideration shifts the burden on the accused to rebut it, which he failed. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.