Donor-directed corpus contributions retain capital character despite exemption claims under section 10(23C)(vi), preventing their treatment as taxable...
Enhanced tax-audit threshold applies where banking records establish compliant non-cash receipts and payments, eliminating penalty exposure for audit ...
Transfer pricing consistency protects identical non-interest-bearing debenture terms from a later notional-interest adjustment without valid statutory...
Rectification of debatable deduction claims cannot reverse scrutiny-approved co-operative society interest income deductions as apparent record errors...
Cash-method accounting bars presumptive interest taxation, while unsupported securities and share-trading additions require reliable material and veri...
Vicarious liability of a company director for cheque dishonour...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sustain prosecution.
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
Vicarious liability of a company director for cheque dishonour requires a complaint to specifically aver that the director was both in charge of, and responsible to, the company for conducting its business when the offence occurred. Mere directorship or a general allegation that all directors managed day-to-day affairs is insufficient. The complaint must also disclose the identity of the person who drew or signed the cheque. As no individual role was attributed to the director and no cheque signatory was identified, continuation of the prosecution was treated as an abuse of process and the cheque-dishonour proceeding was quashed against that director.
Vicarious liability of a company director for cheque dishonour requires a complaint to specifically aver that the director was both in charge of, and responsible to, the company for conducting its business when the offence occurred. Mere directorship or a general allegation that all directors managed day-to-day affairs is insufficient. The complaint must also disclose the identity of the person who drew or signed the cheque. As no individual role was attributed to the director and no cheque signatory was identified, continuation of the prosecution was treated as an abuse of process and the cheque-dishonour proceeding was quashed against that director.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
