Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
881 to 900 of 95916 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.