Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
561 to 580 of 96408 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
No prescribed limitation period governed petitions under the Companies Act before the Company Law Board, but unexplained delay could still matter where relief is discretionary; on these facts, the grievance concerned a continuing course of oppression and mismanagement, so delay, laches, acquiescence and estoppel did not bar scrutiny. The Board could examine fraud and forgery on the record where the material disclosed mala fide exclusion, and its findings on shareholding, clandestine meetings and oppressive conduct were not perverse under Section 10F because they rested on company records and correspondence. Additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 required due diligence and necessity, which were not shown. The special auditor direction was only consequential and was upheld.
No prescribed limitation period governed petitions under the Companies Act before the Company Law Board, but unexplained delay could still matter where relief is discretionary; on these facts, the grievance concerned a continuing course of oppression and mismanagement, so delay, laches, acquiescence and estoppel did not bar scrutiny. The Board could examine fraud and forgery on the record where the material disclosed mala fide exclusion, and its findings on shareholding, clandestine meetings and oppressive conduct were not perverse under Section 10F because they rested on company records and correspondence. Additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 required due diligence and necessity, which were not shown. The special auditor direction was only consequential and was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
