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 allowed the criminal application and quashed proceedings against the Applicant, a part-time director, holding that the complaint fails to plead specific allegations required under s.278B(2) of the Income Tax Act to impute liability for offences committed by the Company. Applying controlling Supreme Court precedent, the HC found that mere averments that all directors are "in charge and responsible" of the Company are insufficient; there must be particularised allegations of consent, connivance or neglect demonstrating involvement in day-to-day management or business operations. Absent such specific pleading, the Director cannot be deemed guilty under s.278B(2), and prosecution against the Applicant was therefore not maintainable.
The HC allowed the criminal application and quashed proceedings against the Applicant, a part-time director, holding that the complaint fails to plead specific allegations required under s.278B(2) of the Income Tax Act to impute liability for offences committed by the Company. Applying controlling Supreme Court precedent, the HC found that mere averments that all directors are "in charge and responsible" of the Company are insufficient; there must be particularised allegations of consent, connivance or neglect demonstrating involvement in day-to-day management or business operations. Absent such specific pleading, the Director cannot be deemed guilty under s.278B(2), and prosecution against the Applicant was therefore not maintainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
