Regulatory consolidation for investment advisers: SEBI issues master circular consolidating guidance and prescribing compliance, reporting, fees and s...
Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
Cognizance of offences under Companies Act ss. 448 and 451 on a private complaint was held impermissible because s. 448 is an offence "covered under" s. 447, attracting the second proviso to s. 212(6), which mandates that cognizance can be taken only on a written complaint by the SFIO Director or a duly authorised Central Government officer; consequently, cognizance of "repeated default" under s. 451 also failed, and proceedings under ss. 448 and 451 were quashed. Quashing of Companies Act offences did not warrant quashing IPC offences because s. 436(2) permits the Special Court to try IPC offences only while trying Companies Act offences; hence the IPC complaint was to be transferred to the competent territorial court for trial. - SC
Cognizance of offences under Companies Act ss. 448 and 451 on a private complaint was held impermissible because s. 448 is an offence "covered under" s. 447, attracting the second proviso to s. 212(6), which mandates that cognizance can be taken only on a written complaint by the SFIO Director or a duly authorised Central Government officer; consequently, cognizance of "repeated default" under s. 451 also failed, and proceedings under ss. 448 and 451 were quashed. Quashing of Companies Act offences did not warrant quashing IPC offences because s. 436(2) permits the Special Court to try IPC offences only while trying Companies Act offences; hence the IPC complaint was to be transferred to the competent territorial court for trial. - SC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.