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 quashed the proceedings initiated under the PMLA against the petitioners, holding that the order taking cognizance violated the mandatory first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, which guarantees the accused a pre-cognizance opportunity of hearing. The Court held that denial of this right vitiates the cognizance itself, rendering all subsequent proceedings null and void, without requiring the accused to prove prejudice or miscarriage of justice. It further rejected the argument that PMLA complaints are akin to charge sheets, affirming they are true complaints subject to BNSS provisions. The omission of explicit reference to complaints under special laws in Section 223 does not exclude the operation of the first proviso. The Court also ruled that inconsistent concessions by the ED are irrelevant to statutory interpretation. Consequently, the impugned cognizance order was declared legally invalid and set aside.
The HC quashed the proceedings initiated under the PMLA against the petitioners, holding that the order taking cognizance violated the mandatory first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, which guarantees the accused a pre-cognizance opportunity of hearing. The Court held that denial of this right vitiates the cognizance itself, rendering all subsequent proceedings null and void, without requiring the accused to prove prejudice or miscarriage of justice. It further rejected the argument that PMLA complaints are akin to charge sheets, affirming they are true complaints subject to BNSS provisions. The omission of explicit reference to complaints under special laws in Section 223 does not exclude the operation of the first proviso. The Court also ruled that inconsistent concessions by the ED are irrelevant to statutory interpretation. Consequently, the impugned cognizance order was declared legally invalid and set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.