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 quashed complaint against corporate office bearers for cheque dishonor due to insufficient legal averments. The court found no substantive evidence demonstrating petitioners' direct responsibility or involvement in cheque issuance. Crucial legal principles require explicit demonstration that accused were "in charge" and "responsible for company affairs" under Sections 138 and 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Complainant failed to establish petitioners' vicarious liability or provide specific details of their consent or knowledge regarding cheque transaction. Mere procedural reproduction of statutory provisions without substantive supporting facts cannot justify summoning accused. Petition allowed, complaint quashed against petitioners.
HC quashed complaint against corporate office bearers for cheque dishonor due to insufficient legal averments. The court found no substantive evidence demonstrating petitioners' direct responsibility or involvement in cheque issuance. Crucial legal principles require explicit demonstration that accused were "in charge" and "responsible for company affairs" under Sections 138 and 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Complainant failed to establish petitioners' vicarious liability or provide specific details of their consent or knowledge regarding cheque transaction. Mere procedural reproduction of statutory provisions without substantive supporting facts cannot justify summoning accused. Petition allowed, complaint quashed against petitioners.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
