Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
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 
