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" ?
SC allowed the appeal and quashed all proceedings against the...
Appeal allowed: Proceedings quashed where company not impleaded; officers cannot be prosecuted on mere vicarious liability without direct-role evidence
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
SC allowed the appeal and quashed all proceedings against the appellants. The Court held that a body corporate must be impleaded before prosecuting its directors or officers on vicarious liability grounds; prosecution of officers alone is impermissible where the company (the Bank) was not accused. Absent unimpeachable material establishing each appellant's direct role, authorization, or deliberate omission linking them to the alleged offence, mere designation or bald assertions of vicarious liability cannot sustain issuance of process. The impugned High Court and Magistrate orders were set aside, Complaint No. 6353 of 2007 was quashed in entirety, and appellants were held entitled to statutory protection under the applicable enactment for acts done in good faith.
SC allowed the appeal and quashed all proceedings against the appellants. The Court held that a body corporate must be impleaded before prosecuting its directors or officers on vicarious liability grounds; prosecution of officers alone is impermissible where the company (the Bank) was not accused. Absent unimpeachable material establishing each appellant's direct role, authorization, or deliberate omission linking them to the alleged offence, mere designation or bald assertions of vicarious liability cannot sustain issuance of process. The impugned High Court and Magistrate orders were set aside, Complaint No. 6353 of 2007 was quashed in entirety, and appellants were held entitled to statutory protection under the applicable enactment for acts done in good faith.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.