Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
Transfer-pricing benchmarking and capital-receipt principles sustained taxpayer relief, while unsupported property-advance write-offs remained disallo...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
941 to 960 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act extends liability...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility averments.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act extends liability for dishonoured company cheques beyond the signatory to directors who were in charge of and responsible for the company's business when the offence occurred. At the summoning stage, a Magistrate need only determine whether the complaint and supporting material disclose a prima facie case, not whether conviction is supported. Allegations that directors controlled company affairs, together with the petitioner's directorship during relevant transactions, were treated as sufficient foundational averments for trial. Questions concerning actual managerial involvement and non-participation require evidence before the Trial Court. The challenge to the summoning orders and cheque-dishonour proceedings was rejected.
Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act extends liability for dishonoured company cheques beyond the signatory to directors who were in charge of and responsible for the company's business when the offence occurred. At the summoning stage, a Magistrate need only determine whether the complaint and supporting material disclose a prima facie case, not whether conviction is supported. Allegations that directors controlled company affairs, together with the petitioner's directorship during relevant transactions, were treated as sufficient foundational averments for trial. Questions concerning actual managerial involvement and non-participation require evidence before the Trial Court. The challenge to the summoning orders and cheque-dishonour proceedings was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
