Depreciation and routine compliance expenses disallowance did not prove inaccurate particulars or misreporting; penalty sustained only on foreign trav...
Proof of demand is the gravamen of offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and recovery of tainted money alone is insufficient without reliable evidence of demand and voluntary acceptance. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal because the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt, material witnesses did not support its case in material particulars, and the statutory presumption under Section 20 could not be invoked. The conspiracy charge also failed because there was no cogent evidence of prior agreement or meeting of minds. The Court further accepted an adverse inference from the non-production of the alleged tape-recorded conversation and declined to interfere with the High Court's plausible view.
Proof of demand is the gravamen of offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and recovery of tainted money alone is insufficient without reliable evidence of demand and voluntary acceptance. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal because the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt, material witnesses did not support its case in material particulars, and the statutory presumption under Section 20 could not be invoked. The conspiracy charge also failed because there was no cogent evidence of prior agreement or meeting of minds. The Court further accepted an adverse inference from the non-production of the alleged tape-recorded conversation and declined to interfere with the High Court's plausible view.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
