Functional comparability under TNMM requires transaction-specific FAR analysis before benchmarking business-support services provided to associated en...
Advance pricing agreement methodology can guide benchmarking for non-covered years when functions, assets, risks and activities remain materially unch...
Tax-audit exemption for substantially State-funded educational universities prevents audit-failure penalties where income qualifies for statutory exem...
Functional, asset and risk analysis excludes diversified technology companies from captive software development comparables under cost-plus arrangemen...
Mobile-phone electronic evidence failed to establish customs undervaluation, while duty survived on non-authentic origin certificates without importer...
Automotive radio classification treats integrated infotainment features as supplementary, placing complete and qualifying unassembled units under the ...
Separate corporate personality prevents directors from being personally liable for company deposits without a guarantee or independent legal undertaki...
Page of 4905
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
81 to 100 of 98083 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA establishes a committal process for moving a scheduled-offence proceeding to the Special Court dealing with the associated money-laundering complaint when cognizance has been taken by different courts. An authorised PMLA authority cannot exercise its discretion in a manner that defeats this statutory scheme, while the court trying the scheduled offence retains responsibility for deciding the committal application. Under Article 226, a direction to initiate the committal process concerns an authority subject to writ jurisdiction rather than a judicial transfer of criminal proceedings. A sufficient territorial nexus may support such a direction even where the scheduled-offence proceeding is pending outside the State.
Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA establishes a committal process for moving a scheduled-offence proceeding to the Special Court dealing with the associated money-laundering complaint when cognizance has been taken by different courts. An authorised PMLA authority cannot exercise its discretion in a manner that defeats this statutory scheme, while the court trying the scheduled offence retains responsibility for deciding the committal application. Under Article 226, a direction to initiate the committal process concerns an authority subject to writ jurisdiction rather than a judicial transfer of criminal proceedings. A sufficient territorial nexus may support such a direction even where the scheduled-offence proceeding is pending outside the State.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4905 
