Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires person-specific foundational averments showing how an accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company or entity's affairs. A complaint cannot proceed on designation alone. The Court found sufficient prima facie material against respondents 1, 2 and 4 because the complaint and documents linked them to the underlying borrowing and execution of the MoU, cheque and promissory notes, justifying continuation of prosecution. As to respondent 3, only a general assertion based on his status as Executive Member was made, with no specific factual nexus to the dishonoured cheque transaction, so quashing was upheld for him.
Vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires person-specific foundational averments showing how an accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company or entity's affairs. A complaint cannot proceed on designation alone. The Court found sufficient prima facie material against respondents 1, 2 and 4 because the complaint and documents linked them to the underlying borrowing and execution of the MoU, cheque and promissory notes, justifying continuation of prosecution. As to respondent 3, only a general assertion based on his status as Executive Member was made, with no specific factual nexus to the dishonoured cheque transaction, so quashing was upheld for him.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
