Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
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...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
