Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court considered a case involving dishonour of cheque due to insufficiency of funds, determining if a legally enforceable debt existed. The accused was acquitted of the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court assessed evidence to prove cheque execution, rebutting statutory presumptions u/s 139 and 118 of the NI Act. Referring to legal precedents, it highlighted the onus on the accused akin to civil proceedings and the standard of proof required to rebut presumptions. Emphasizing the principle that if two views are possible, an appellate court should not reverse an acquittal. The court upheld the finding that the accused successfully rebutted statutory presumptions, leading to dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court considered a case involving dishonour of cheque due to insufficiency of funds, determining if a legally enforceable debt existed. The accused was acquitted of the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court assessed evidence to prove cheque execution, rebutting statutory presumptions u/s 139 and 118 of the NI Act. Referring to legal precedents, it highlighted the onus on the accused akin to civil proceedings and the standard of proof required to rebut presumptions. Emphasizing the principle that if two views are possible, an appellate court should not reverse an acquittal. The court upheld the finding that the accused successfully rebutted statutory presumptions, leading to dismissal of the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
