Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
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 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
