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...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
261 to 280 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act arose once the cheque and signature were proved, and the accused's bare plea of non-issuance, unsupported by expert evidence, witnesses, or credible material, failed to rebut the presumption of a legally enforceable debt on the preponderance of probabilities. The bank return memo also carried the statutory presumption of correctness under Section 146, so the objection that no bank official was examined was rejected. The High Court further held that revisional interference with concurrent findings is confined to patent illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice; finding none, it upheld the conviction and dismissed the revision.
Statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act arose once the cheque and signature were proved, and the accused's bare plea of non-issuance, unsupported by expert evidence, witnesses, or credible material, failed to rebut the presumption of a legally enforceable debt on the preponderance of probabilities. The bank return memo also carried the statutory presumption of correctness under Section 146, so the objection that no bank official was examined was rejected. The High Court further held that revisional interference with concurrent findings is confined to patent illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice; finding none, it upheld the conviction and dismissed the revision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
