Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
Transfer-pricing benchmarking and capital-receipt principles sustained taxpayer relief, while unsupported property-advance write-offs remained disallo...
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.