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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
The HC held that a dissolved company remains liable for offences committed prior to dissolution, as per Section 250 of the Companies Act and Sections 70 and 71 of the PMLA Act. Such a company can be prosecuted by restoring it under Section 305 Cr.P.C or, if restoration is not feasible, by prosecuting a director or authorized representative as its representative. The court affirmed that designating a director as the representative of the dissolved company in criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 120B IPC, and Sections 13(2), 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act is justified in the interest of justice. The petition challenging the order refusing to remove the petitioner as the company's representative was dismissed, confirming the Special Court's decision and upholding the prosecution's approach to ensure accountability despite the company's dissolution.
The HC held that a dissolved company remains liable for offences committed prior to dissolution, as per Section 250 of the Companies Act and Sections 70 and 71 of the PMLA Act. Such a company can be prosecuted by restoring it under Section 305 Cr.P.C or, if restoration is not feasible, by prosecuting a director or authorized representative as its representative. The court affirmed that designating a director as the representative of the dissolved company in criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 120B IPC, and Sections 13(2), 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act is justified in the interest of justice. The petition challenging the order refusing to remove the petitioner as the company's representative was dismissed, confirming the Special Court's decision and upholding the prosecution's approach to ensure accountability despite the company's dissolution.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
