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 - vicarious liability of authorized signatory - There is no denial that stop payment was made. A plea has also been taken that Gurucharan Singh, who has signed the Cheque was neither Director nor authorized signatory of the Company on the date of issuance of Cheque. But nothing has been placed before this court in support of this plea and disclosed as to who was the authorized signatory and as to how and why the applicants were not responsible to the Company for conduct of the business of Company, whereas the applicant no.1 is the Company and applicants no.2 to 4 are the Directors of the Company. Therefore, it can not be said that they are not responsible. - HC
Dishonor of Cheque - vicarious liability of authorized signatory - There is no denial that stop payment was made. A plea has also been taken that Gurucharan Singh, who has signed the Cheque was neither Director nor authorized signatory of the Company on the date of issuance of Cheque. But nothing has been placed before this court in support of this plea and disclosed as to who was the authorized signatory and as to how and why the applicants were not responsible to the Company for conduct of the business of Company, whereas the applicant no.1 is the Company and applicants no.2 to 4 are the Directors of the Company. Therefore, it can not be said that they are not responsible. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
