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" ?
The HC exercised its discretionary jurisdiction to further reduce the compounding fine imposed on each Petitioner under sections 159, 162, and 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956. The Petitioners, not being directors at the time of the alleged offences, were initially fined Rs. 1.5 lakhs each for failure to file financial statements and annual returns. Applying the doctrine of proportionality and balancing and necessity tests, the Court found the original fine excessive given the nature of the offence and prior penalties on the company. Consequently, the Court reduced the compounding fine to Rs. 1 lakh each, acknowledging the protracted litigation and concluding the matter.
The HC exercised its discretionary jurisdiction to further reduce the compounding fine imposed on each Petitioner under sections 159, 162, and 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956. The Petitioners, not being directors at the time of the alleged offences, were initially fined Rs. 1.5 lakhs each for failure to file financial statements and annual returns. Applying the doctrine of proportionality and balancing and necessity tests, the Court found the original fine excessive given the nature of the offence and prior penalties on the company. Consequently, the Court reduced the compounding fine to Rs. 1 lakh each, acknowledging the protracted litigation and concluding the matter.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
