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 exercised judicial discretion under Section 311 Cr.PC, rejecting petitioner's attempt to recall witnesses. The court found no substantive grounds for reopening testimony, noting petitioner's repeated failure to cross-examine respondent and abuse of procedural mechanisms. Trial court's previous orders demonstrated significant leniency, granting multiple adjournments. Fundamental principles of judicial discretion mandate cautious and circumspective application of witness recall provisions. Concluding that petitioner's actions would potentially derail judicial proceedings and cause prejudice, the HC dismissed the petition as meritless, affirming the trial court's original order and maintaining procedural integrity.
HC exercised judicial discretion under Section 311 Cr.PC, rejecting petitioner's attempt to recall witnesses. The court found no substantive grounds for reopening testimony, noting petitioner's repeated failure to cross-examine respondent and abuse of procedural mechanisms. Trial court's previous orders demonstrated significant leniency, granting multiple adjournments. Fundamental principles of judicial discretion mandate cautious and circumspective application of witness recall provisions. Concluding that petitioner's actions would potentially derail judicial proceedings and cause prejudice, the HC dismissed the petition as meritless, affirming the trial court's original order and maintaining procedural integrity.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.