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" ?
HC, exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, declined to interfere with the Special Court's order taking cognizance. Relying on settled law that cognizance is of the offence and not the offender, and that interference with cognizance orders is permissible only if they are perverse or unsupported by material, HC held that the Special Court had duly applied its mind to the complaint, police report and accompanying material. The impugned order disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed and summon the accused, and contained no illegality, infirmity or perversity. Consequently, the petition challenging the cognizance order was dismissed and the proceedings before the Special Court were permitted to continue.
HC, exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, declined to interfere with the Special Court's order taking cognizance. Relying on settled law that cognizance is of the offence and not the offender, and that interference with cognizance orders is permissible only if they are perverse or unsupported by material, HC held that the Special Court had duly applied its mind to the complaint, police report and accompanying material. The impugned order disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed and summon the accused, and contained no illegality, infirmity or perversity. Consequently, the petition challenging the cognizance order was dismissed and the proceedings before the Special Court were permitted to continue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
