Revenue neutrality in domestic related-party loans can require deletion of interest transfer pricing adjustments after domestic-transaction verificati...
HC exercised inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings against petitioner-companies. The court determined that advances collected for immovable property sale were exempted from deposit regulations under Rule 2(1)(c)(xii)(b) of Companies (Acceptance of Deposit) Rules, 2014. The complaint was found to be maliciously instituted without substantive legal merit, lacking direct involvement of the complainant in the business transactions. The court concluded that continuing the proceedings would constitute an abuse of judicial process, thereby allowing the petition and quashing the criminal cases against the petitioners.
HC exercised inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings against petitioner-companies. The court determined that advances collected for immovable property sale were exempted from deposit regulations under Rule 2(1)(c)(xii)(b) of Companies (Acceptance of Deposit) Rules, 2014. The complaint was found to be maliciously instituted without substantive legal merit, lacking direct involvement of the complainant in the business transactions. The court concluded that continuing the proceedings would constitute an abuse of judicial process, thereby allowing the petition and quashing the criminal cases against the petitioners.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
