Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking to quash a complaint u/s 482 CrPC regarding dishonour of a cheque. The petitioner, a Chief Financial Officer, was held liable u/s 138 and 141 of the NI Act as a 'Key Managerial Personnel' of the company and signatory to the cheque. The complaint did not rely on u/s 28 of the NI Act but on u/s 141 to implicate the petitioner. The court distinguished the case from Sivagurunatha Pillai, stating it did not apply. The petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to present defenses at the Trial Court.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking to quash a complaint u/s 482 CrPC regarding dishonour of a cheque. The petitioner, a Chief Financial Officer, was held liable u/s 138 and 141 of the NI Act as a 'Key Managerial Personnel' of the company and signatory to the cheque. The complaint did not rely on u/s 28 of the NI Act but on u/s 141 to implicate the petitioner. The court distinguished the case from Sivagurunatha Pillai, stating it did not apply. The petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to present defenses at the Trial Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
