Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Page of 4790
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
941 to 960 of 95794 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 482 CrPC is described as a safeguard against misuse of criminal process, but not as a licence for threshold appreciation of evidence. In a dispute arising from import, customs clearance and later fiscal proceedings, the absence of original transit declarations, forensic or handwriting material, and proof that either petitioner authored the disputed signatures meant forgery under Sections 463, 464 and 468 IPC was not disclosed. The complaint also failed to show deception at the inception of the transaction, cheating by personation or conspiracy. The criminal case was treated as an abuse of process and the FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance order were quashed.
Section 482 CrPC is described as a safeguard against misuse of criminal process, but not as a licence for threshold appreciation of evidence. In a dispute arising from import, customs clearance and later fiscal proceedings, the absence of original transit declarations, forensic or handwriting material, and proof that either petitioner authored the disputed signatures meant forgery under Sections 463, 464 and 468 IPC was not disclosed. The complaint also failed to show deception at the inception of the transaction, cheating by personation or conspiracy. The criminal case was treated as an abuse of process and the FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance order were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
