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 dismissed the revision petition and upheld the Special Judge's refusal to discharge the anonymized applicant; the court held that regulatory/adjudicatory exoneration did not bar criminal prosecution because the adjudicating order lacked a detailed, clear declaration of innocence and contained adverse findings bearing on the applicant's role as CEO. Applying settled principles, the HC found prima facie material - inspection reports, forensic audit, exchange reports and account records - sufficient to raise strong suspicion of offences under s.24(1) read with s.27(1) of the SEBI Act and to satisfy the limited threshold at the s.227 CrPC stage; therefore charges may be framed and trial shall proceed.
The HC dismissed the revision petition and upheld the Special Judge's refusal to discharge the anonymized applicant; the court held that regulatory/adjudicatory exoneration did not bar criminal prosecution because the adjudicating order lacked a detailed, clear declaration of innocence and contained adverse findings bearing on the applicant's role as CEO. Applying settled principles, the HC found prima facie material - inspection reports, forensic audit, exchange reports and account records - sufficient to raise strong suspicion of offences under s.24(1) read with s.27(1) of the SEBI Act and to satisfy the limited threshold at the s.227 CrPC stage; therefore charges may be framed and trial shall proceed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
