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" ?
Complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held not maintainable where the cheque was issued on behalf of a company but the company itself was not arrayed as an accused. Applying the principle that vicarious liability of directors or authorised signatories arises only when the principal offender, namely the drawer company, is before the court, the court held that arraignment of the company is a mandatory condition precedent. On that basis, the complaints and summoning orders against the petitioner alone were set aside, with liberty to pursue any remedy available in law.
Complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held not maintainable where the cheque was issued on behalf of a company but the company itself was not arrayed as an accused. Applying the principle that vicarious liability of directors or authorised signatories arises only when the principal offender, namely the drawer company, is before the court, the court held that arraignment of the company is a mandatory condition precedent. On that basis, the complaints and summoning orders against the petitioner alone were set aside, with liberty to pursue any remedy available in law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.