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...
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
