Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Scientific research association approval requires continuing SIRO status, annual donation reporting, and donor certificates for the approved foundatio...
Scientific research institution approval is conditional on SIRO recognition, annual donation reporting, donor certification, and prescribed compliance...
Page of 4878
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 97553 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 whether dishonored cheques were given for a legally enforceable debt. The appellant failed to prove the existence of a default by the respondents or that the cheques were for a valid debt. Without meeting the burden u/s 138, the appellant couldn't rely on u/s 139 presumption. The appellant must provide detailed account statements to establish a legally enforceable debt for a successful u/s 138 case. The respondents disputed the debt amount and claimed misuse of security cheques. Without proper evidence, the dishonor of cheques doesn't trigger u/s 138. The court upheld lower courts' decisions as the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence. The appeal was dismissed.
The High Court considered whether dishonored cheques were given for a legally enforceable debt. The appellant failed to prove the existence of a default by the respondents or that the cheques were for a valid debt. Without meeting the burden u/s 138, the appellant couldn't rely on u/s 139 presumption. The appellant must provide detailed account statements to establish a legally enforceable debt for a successful u/s 138 case. The respondents disputed the debt amount and claimed misuse of security cheques. Without proper evidence, the dishonor of cheques doesn't trigger u/s 138. The court upheld lower courts' decisions as the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence. The appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4878 
