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" ?
SC held that a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of PMLA is governed by CrPC Sections 200-204, with Sections 223-226 also applicable. In the instant case, the Special Judge failed to provide the appellant an opportunity to be heard before taking cognizance of the offense. Consequently, the impugned order dated 20th April 2024 was set aside due to non-compliance with Section 223(1) of BNSS. The appellate court allowed the appeal, emphasizing procedural fairness and the mandatory requirement of hearing the accused prior to cognizance.
SC held that a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of PMLA is governed by CrPC Sections 200-204, with Sections 223-226 also applicable. In the instant case, the Special Judge failed to provide the appellant an opportunity to be heard before taking cognizance of the offense. Consequently, the impugned order dated 20th April 2024 was set aside due to non-compliance with Section 223(1) of BNSS. The appellate court allowed the appeal, emphasizing procedural fairness and the mandatory requirement of hearing the accused prior to cognizance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
