Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Dishonour of Cheque - vicarious liability of directors - After considering the submissions of both parties, the court found that the impugned orders suffered from non-application of mind and lacked sufficient averments to justify the prosecution of the petitioners. It emphasized that liability under Section 141 is not based solely on designation but on the actual role played in the company's affairs. As the complaints failed to provide specific allegations against the petitioners regarding their involvement or negligence, the court held that prosecuting them would amount to an abuse of process.
Dishonour of Cheque - vicarious liability of directors - After considering the submissions of both parties, the court found that the impugned orders suffered from non-application of mind and lacked sufficient averments to justify the prosecution of the petitioners. It emphasized that liability under Section 141 is not based solely on designation but on the actual role played in the company's affairs. As the complaints failed to provide specific allegations against the petitioners regarding their involvement or negligence, the court held that prosecuting them would amount to an abuse of process.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.