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...
The High Court addressed the challenge to the acquittal of the accused u/s 255(1) of Cr. P. C. for dishonoring a cheque due to insufficient funds. It clarified that the statutory notice period starts from the date of receiving information from the bank about the dishonored cheque, not the exact dishonor date. The court upheld the validity of the notice despite the inclusion of a demand for legal interest alongside the cheque amount. Citing Suman Sethi v. Ajay K. Churiwal, it emphasized that separate claims in the notice are permissible and do not invalidate it. Consequently, the accused was convicted u/s 138 of the NI Act, sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court, and ordered to pay Rs.70,000 compensation u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C, with a default clause for further imprisonment if the compensation is not paid. The appeal was allowed, overturning the previous judgment.
The High Court addressed the challenge to the acquittal of the accused u/s 255(1) of Cr. P. C. for dishonoring a cheque due to insufficient funds. It clarified that the statutory notice period starts from the date of receiving information from the bank about the dishonored cheque, not the exact dishonor date. The court upheld the validity of the notice despite the inclusion of a demand for legal interest alongside the cheque amount. Citing Suman Sethi v. Ajay K. Churiwal, it emphasized that separate claims in the notice are permissible and do not invalidate it. Consequently, the accused was convicted u/s 138 of the NI Act, sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court, and ordered to pay Rs.70,000 compensation u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C, with a default clause for further imprisonment if the compensation is not paid. The appeal was allowed, overturning the previous judgment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
