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 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 
