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 ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 95957 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.