Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Dishonour of Cheque - The High Court observed that, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is a presumption of law, as distinguished from the presumption of facts. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence, which requires the Prosecution to prove the case against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt - The burden of proof was however on the person who wanted to rebut the presumption. - The court found that the applicant's attempts to rebut the presumption were unsuccessful. The evidence supported the transaction that led to the issuance of the cheques, and the applicant's defense was deemed not credible.
Dishonour of Cheque - The High Court observed that, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is a presumption of law, as distinguished from the presumption of facts. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence, which requires the Prosecution to prove the case against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt - The burden of proof was however on the person who wanted to rebut the presumption. - The court found that the applicant's attempts to rebut the presumption were unsuccessful. The evidence supported the transaction that led to the issuance of the cheques, and the applicant's defense was deemed not credible.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.