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 affirmed the vicarious liability of the petitioner under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act for dishonored cheques. As a whole-time director and signatory of the company at the time of issuance, the petitioner's subsequent resignation (one day after issuance) did not absolve liability. Unlike in Kamal Goyal, where resignation preceded cheque issuance, here the petitioner resigned after the cheques were issued. The court found sufficient basis for prosecution given the petitioner's role as director when the cheques were issued and specific averments in the complaint regarding his position. The petition challenging the summoning order was accordingly dismissed.
The HC affirmed the vicarious liability of the petitioner under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act for dishonored cheques. As a whole-time director and signatory of the company at the time of issuance, the petitioner's subsequent resignation (one day after issuance) did not absolve liability. Unlike in Kamal Goyal, where resignation preceded cheque issuance, here the petitioner resigned after the cheques were issued. The court found sufficient basis for prosecution given the petitioner's role as director when the cheques were issued and specific averments in the complaint regarding his position. The petition challenging the summoning order was accordingly dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.