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" ?
In a revision against conviction under s.138 NI Act, the dominant issue was whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumptions under ss.118(a) and 139 after admitting the cheque and signature. Since issuance and signature were not disputed, presumption of legally enforceable debt arose and the accused led no credible rebuttal; the plea of non-receipt of notice failed as no payment was made within 15 days of summons. The revisional court held it could not reappreciate evidence absent perversity and found no jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the conviction. Compensation equal to the cheque amount was held not excessive. Revision was dismissed - HC
In a revision against conviction under s.138 NI Act, the dominant issue was whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumptions under ss.118(a) and 139 after admitting the cheque and signature. Since issuance and signature were not disputed, presumption of legally enforceable debt arose and the accused led no credible rebuttal; the plea of non-receipt of notice failed as no payment was made within 15 days of summons. The revisional court held it could not reappreciate evidence absent perversity and found no jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the conviction. Compensation equal to the cheque amount was held not excessive. Revision was dismissed - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
