Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Dishonour of Cheque - vicarious liability - resident Indian Director - The High Court observed that by virtue of being an Executive Director, the petitioner was presumed to be in charge and responsible for the company's operations under the NI Act and Companies Act. The court referenced several Supreme Court decisions to assert that the role of an Executive Director is distinctly accountable for the company's business conduct. The judgments clarified that persons holding managerial or directorial positions could be held accountable for corporate offenses unless they unequivocally demonstrate their non-involvement or exercise of due diligence. - Ultimately, the court dismissed the petitions, reaffirming the summons issued by the Trial Court.
Dishonour of Cheque - vicarious liability - resident Indian Director - The High Court observed that by virtue of being an Executive Director, the petitioner was presumed to be in charge and responsible for the company's operations under the NI Act and Companies Act. The court referenced several Supreme Court decisions to assert that the role of an Executive Director is distinctly accountable for the company's business conduct. The judgments clarified that persons holding managerial or directorial positions could be held accountable for corporate offenses unless they unequivocally demonstrate their non-involvement or exercise of due diligence. - Ultimately, the court dismissed the petitions, reaffirming the summons issued by the Trial Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
