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" ?
HC determined the arrest unlawful due to failure to comply with Section 50 CrPC's mandate of "forthwith" communication of arrest grounds. The court distinguished between 'grounds of arrest' and 'reasons for arrest', emphasizing that grounds must convey specific facts enabling defense against custodial remand and bail application. While formal arrest occurred at 6:30 PM via arrest memo, the investigating officer's failure to simultaneously serve arrest grounds violated both Section 50 CrPC and Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The court established that "forthwith" requires immediate and concurrent communication of arrest grounds to protect against arbitrary liberty deprivation. The petition challenging the arrest's validity was consequently allowed.
HC determined the arrest unlawful due to failure to comply with Section 50 CrPC's mandate of "forthwith" communication of arrest grounds. The court distinguished between 'grounds of arrest' and 'reasons for arrest', emphasizing that grounds must convey specific facts enabling defense against custodial remand and bail application. While formal arrest occurred at 6:30 PM via arrest memo, the investigating officer's failure to simultaneously serve arrest grounds violated both Section 50 CrPC and Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The court established that "forthwith" requires immediate and concurrent communication of arrest grounds to protect against arbitrary liberty deprivation. The petition challenging the arrest's validity was consequently allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
