Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The High Court acquitted the accused u/s 255(1) Cr.P.C due to failure to prove the cheque was issued to discharge a debt. The complainant's evidence was unreliable, and the accused's version was deemed more probable. The Supreme Court held in M.S.Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala that if material consistent with the accused's innocence is presented, even if not conclusively proven, acquittal is warranted. The standard of proof to rebut statutory presumptions u/s 118 and 139 of NI Act is preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, as no evidence showed the cheque was for a legally enforceable debt, the accused successfully rebutted the presumption. The appeal was dismissed.
The High Court acquitted the accused u/s 255(1) Cr.P.C due to failure to prove the cheque was issued to discharge a debt. The complainant's evidence was unreliable, and the accused's version was deemed more probable. The Supreme Court held in M.S.Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala that if material consistent with the accused's innocence is presented, even if not conclusively proven, acquittal is warranted. The standard of proof to rebut statutory presumptions u/s 118 and 139 of NI Act is preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, as no evidence showed the cheque was for a legally enforceable debt, the accused successfully rebutted the presumption. The appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
