Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
In this case, the High Court addressed the issue of dishonour of a cheque u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. The accused issued a cheque in discharge of a debt but failed to pay the amount within 15 days of receiving a demand notice. The court applied the presumption u/s 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act, which states that every negotiable instrument is presumed to be made for consideration and that the holder received the cheque for the discharge of debt. The accused did not dispute the cheque or his signature, failing to rebut the statutory presumption. The court found no merit in the revision petition and dismissed it. The accused's failure to provide evidence led to disbelief in his claims.
In this case, the High Court addressed the issue of dishonour of a cheque u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. The accused issued a cheque in discharge of a debt but failed to pay the amount within 15 days of receiving a demand notice. The court applied the presumption u/s 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act, which states that every negotiable instrument is presumed to be made for consideration and that the holder received the cheque for the discharge of debt. The accused did not dispute the cheque or his signature, failing to rebut the statutory presumption. The court found no merit in the revision petition and dismissed it. The accused's failure to provide evidence led to disbelief in his claims.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
