Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The High Court addressed the issue of criminal liability in a...
High Court clarifies: Individuals in charge of company can be held liable in cheque dishonor cases. Legal responsibility upheld u/ss 138 and 141 of NI Act.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The High Court addressed the issue of criminal liability in a cheque dishonor case involving a company. The complainant failed to specify the authorized signatory or the person in charge of daily affairs. Referring to a Supreme Court ruling, it was established that individuals responsible for a company's affairs can be summoned and penalized u/s 138 with Section 141 of NI Act. The complainant asserted that the accused were fully responsible for the company's operations, shifting the burden to the accused to prove any restrictions on their powers. The court found no flaws in summoning the accused, dismissing the petition.
The High Court addressed the issue of criminal liability in a cheque dishonor case involving a company. The complainant failed to specify the authorized signatory or the person in charge of daily affairs. Referring to a Supreme Court ruling, it was established that individuals responsible for a company's affairs can be summoned and penalized u/s 138 with Section 141 of NI Act. The complainant asserted that the accused were fully responsible for the company's operations, shifting the burden to the accused to prove any restrictions on their powers. The court found no flaws in summoning the accused, dismissing the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
