Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
