Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
HC dismissed bail petition of accused charged with serious economic offenses involving bank fraud and misappropriation under Section 447 of Companies Act. Accused allegedly played active managerial role in siphoning public funds through puppet companies, writing off stocks and inventories via misrepresentations to banks. Despite completed investigation, court determined accused's presence necessary for charge framing. Court rejected long incarceration argument, distinguishing from V. Senthil Balaji precedent as present case solely involved Companies Act violations. Parity grounds also dismissed as co-accused's bail order pending Supreme Court review. Court emphasized risk of evidence tampering and witness influence, noting non-compliance with twin conditions under Section 212(6) of Companies Act, 2013.
HC dismissed bail petition of accused charged with serious economic offenses involving bank fraud and misappropriation under Section 447 of Companies Act. Accused allegedly played active managerial role in siphoning public funds through puppet companies, writing off stocks and inventories via misrepresentations to banks. Despite completed investigation, court determined accused's presence necessary for charge framing. Court rejected long incarceration argument, distinguishing from V. Senthil Balaji precedent as present case solely involved Companies Act violations. Parity grounds also dismissed as co-accused's bail order pending Supreme Court review. Court emphasized risk of evidence tampering and witness influence, noting non-compliance with twin conditions under Section 212(6) of Companies Act, 2013.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
