Omitted specified domestic transaction provision invalidates related-party expenditure transfer-pricing references and assessments based on consequent...
Preventive suspension requires an immediate continuing threat and cannot become indefinite without inquiry, fresh evidence, or proportionate safeguard...
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 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
