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 - fund insufficient - vicarious liability of Managing Director - the petitioners have not issued the cheques and they have tendered their resignation much before issuance of the said cheques. These are un-controvertible facts. Only a bald averment is made in the complaint against them that they were responsible for day to day affairs of the company. There is no specific averment against them to show, as to how and in what manner the petitioners are responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. Moreover, they were not the Managing Director of the Company. - HC
Dishonor of cheque - fund insufficient - vicarious liability of Managing Director - the petitioners have not issued the cheques and they have tendered their resignation much before issuance of the said cheques. These are un-controvertible facts. Only a bald averment is made in the complaint against them that they were responsible for day to day affairs of the company. There is no specific averment against them to show, as to how and in what manner the petitioners are responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. Moreover, they were not the Managing Director of the Company. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.