Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The HC held that the Special Judge's cognizance of money laundering charges against a government servant, based on assets exceeding known income by 113.45%, was invalid for failure to comply with the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, which mandates giving the accused an opportunity to be heard before cognizance. This procedural safeguard departs from the Cr.P.C. and cannot be bypassed. The Court clarified that re-examination of the complainant or witnesses is unnecessary when the complaint is by a public servant in official capacity or under transfer provisions of Section 212 BNSS. Consequently, the HC set aside the cognizance order dated 27.03.2025, reverting the matter to the pre-cognizance stage with directions for the Special Judge to adhere to the statutory hearing requirement before proceeding further. The petition was allowed accordingly.
The HC held that the Special Judge's cognizance of money laundering charges against a government servant, based on assets exceeding known income by 113.45%, was invalid for failure to comply with the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, which mandates giving the accused an opportunity to be heard before cognizance. This procedural safeguard departs from the Cr.P.C. and cannot be bypassed. The Court clarified that re-examination of the complainant or witnesses is unnecessary when the complaint is by a public servant in official capacity or under transfer provisions of Section 212 BNSS. Consequently, the HC set aside the cognizance order dated 27.03.2025, reverting the matter to the pre-cognizance stage with directions for the Special Judge to adhere to the statutory hearing requirement before proceeding further. The petition was allowed accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
