Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 4823 
Join Channel 
