Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Dishonor of Cheque - acquittal of the accused - The title “M/s” used in the complaint, affidavit-in-evidence, agreement dated 04.09.2010 and in the statutory notice, before the words “Zenith Constructions”, may also lead to an inference, that it was actually a partnership firm. In such circumstances, if it was not actually a partnership, but an individual proprietary concern, the burden to prove the same lay squarely on the complainant. On the other hand, the claim of the complainant that he was the sole proprietor of Zenith Constructions was also not denied by the accused. In view of this, it would only be appropriate to remit the matter to the Trial Court to clearly reach a definite finding whether the complainant is the sole proprietor of Zenith Constructions or not. - HC
Dishonor of Cheque - acquittal of the accused - The title “M/s” used in the complaint, affidavit-in-evidence, agreement dated 04.09.2010 and in the statutory notice, before the words “Zenith Constructions”, may also lead to an inference, that it was actually a partnership firm. In such circumstances, if it was not actually a partnership, but an individual proprietary concern, the burden to prove the same lay squarely on the complainant. On the other hand, the claim of the complainant that he was the sole proprietor of Zenith Constructions was also not denied by the accused. In view of this, it would only be appropriate to remit the matter to the Trial Court to clearly reach a definite finding whether the complainant is the sole proprietor of Zenith Constructions or not. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
