Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 95872 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 does not impose automatic vicarious liability on a director merely because of directorship. A cheque-dishonour complaint must specifically allege that the person was in charge of and responsible for the company's business when the offence occurred, or that it resulted from that person's consent, connivance or neglect. General allegations are inadequate, particularly where the person neither signed the cheques nor remained a director when they were issued and dishonoured. Statutory records establishing resignation before issuance of the cheques negate such liability, and continuation of proceedings in those circumstances constitutes abuse of process.
Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not impose automatic vicarious liability on a director merely because of directorship. A cheque-dishonour complaint must specifically allege that the person was in charge of and responsible for the company's business when the offence occurred, or that it resulted from that person's consent, connivance or neglect. General allegations are inadequate, particularly where the person neither signed the cheques nor remained a director when they were issued and dishonoured. Statutory records establishing resignation before issuance of the cheques negate such liability, and continuation of proceedings in those circumstances constitutes abuse of process.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.