Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Dishonor of Cheque - person responsible for day to day affairs of the company - In the facts of the present case, the only averment in the complaint is that the remaining accused persons are directly responsible for day to day affairs of the accused No.1 company. Considering the fact that the petitioner is neither the signatory nor the Managing Director of the company nor is there any averment in the complaint as to how the petitioner is responsible and Incharge of the day to day affairs and conduct of the company, nor does the complaint attribute any conduct, act or omission on the part of the petitioner which would be sufficient to hold him vicariously liable for the act of the company, the impugned order summoning the petitioner is liable to be set aside. - HC
Dishonor of Cheque - person responsible for day to day affairs of the company - In the facts of the present case, the only averment in the complaint is that the remaining accused persons are directly responsible for day to day affairs of the accused No.1 company. Considering the fact that the petitioner is neither the signatory nor the Managing Director of the company nor is there any averment in the complaint as to how the petitioner is responsible and Incharge of the day to day affairs and conduct of the company, nor does the complaint attribute any conduct, act or omission on the part of the petitioner which would be sufficient to hold him vicariously liable for the act of the company, the impugned order summoning the petitioner is liable to be set aside. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
