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 law regarding the liability of a director for an offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act committed by a company is well-established. Section 141, being a penal provision, must be strictly construed. Only directors who were in charge of the day-to-day affairs and responsible for the conduct of the company's business can be held liable. The word 'in-charge of business' implies having overall control of the day-to-day business. To establish vicarious liability, the complainant must show that the director was associated with the day-to-day affairs and management. A director cannot be accused based on a cursory statement or vague averment. The appropriate pleadings/averments will be determined case-by-case. In the present case, the complaint contained necessary averments in line with Section 141, stating that the petitioner, along with other directors, was jointly and severally responsible and in charge of the company's business and management. The petition was dismissed.
The law regarding the liability of a director for an offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act committed by a company is well-established. Section 141, being a penal provision, must be strictly construed. Only directors who were in charge of the day-to-day affairs and responsible for the conduct of the company's business can be held liable. The word 'in-charge of business' implies having overall control of the day-to-day business. To establish vicarious liability, the complainant must show that the director was associated with the day-to-day affairs and management. A director cannot be accused based on a cursory statement or vague averment. The appropriate pleadings/averments will be determined case-by-case. In the present case, the complaint contained necessary averments in line with Section 141, stating that the petitioner, along with other directors, was jointly and severally responsible and in charge of the company's business and management. The petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
