Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Dishonour of Cheque - vicarious liability of the director - appellant was in-charge of day-to-day affairs of the Company or not - The appellant argued against her vicarious liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, contending that she was not involved in the company's day-to-day affairs and was not a signatory to the cheques in question. The court found the allegations insufficient to establish the appellant's liability and quashed the proceedings against her. - Mere directorship does not automatically entail liability. - The court noted that the complaint lacked specific averments demonstrating how the appellant was in charge of the company's day-to-day affairs or responsible for its conduct.
Dishonour of Cheque - vicarious liability of the director - appellant was in-charge of day-to-day affairs of the Company or not - The appellant argued against her vicarious liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, contending that she was not involved in the company's day-to-day affairs and was not a signatory to the cheques in question. The court found the allegations insufficient to establish the appellant's liability and quashed the proceedings against her. - Mere directorship does not automatically entail liability. - The court noted that the complaint lacked specific averments demonstrating how the appellant was in charge of the company's day-to-day affairs or responsible for its conduct.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
