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...
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...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
721 to 740 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Vicarious criminal liability of a non-signatory director for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations that, at the relevant time, the director was both in charge of and responsible for the company's business. Directorship alone does not establish liability. A complaint must disclose the director's role in day-to-day operations or financial transactions, or facts showing consent, connivance or neglect connected with the dishonoured cheque. Where the director was neither a party to the underlying agreement nor a cheque signatory and the complaint contains only general allegations, prosecution for cheque dishonour read with vicarious liability provisions cannot continue; the complaints and process were quashed against the director.
Vicarious criminal liability of a non-signatory director for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations that, at the relevant time, the director was both in charge of and responsible for the company's business. Directorship alone does not establish liability. A complaint must disclose the director's role in day-to-day operations or financial transactions, or facts showing consent, connivance or neglect connected with the dishonoured cheque. Where the director was neither a party to the underlying agreement nor a cheque signatory and the complaint contains only general allegations, prosecution for cheque dishonour read with vicarious liability provisions cannot continue; the complaints and process were quashed against the director.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.