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...
Criminal breach of trust - loan and its repayment - dishonest intention or not - proceeding under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is pending for dishonor of cheque - Parallel proceedings or not - This case involved a dispute over the repayment of a loan, where the petitioners (a company and its directors) were accused of failing to fulfill their financial obligations, leading to charges under the IPC. The court's analysis revealed that the dispute was of a civil nature and that there was insufficient evidence of any criminal wrongdoing by the petitioners. Consequently, the court quashed the legal proceedings against them, highlighting the absence of dishonesty or misappropriation and emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between civil disputes and criminal offences.
Criminal breach of trust - loan and its repayment - dishonest intention or not - proceeding under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is pending for dishonor of cheque - Parallel proceedings or not - This case involved a dispute over the repayment of a loan, where the petitioners (a company and its directors) were accused of failing to fulfill their financial obligations, leading to charges under the IPC. The court's analysis revealed that the dispute was of a civil nature and that there was insufficient evidence of any criminal wrongdoing by the petitioners. Consequently, the court quashed the legal proceedings against them, highlighting the absence of dishonesty or misappropriation and emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between civil disputes and criminal offences.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.