Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The court interpreted Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding that managing directors and joint managing directors are responsible for the company's conduct by virtue of their position. Signatories of dishonored checks are also covered u/s 141(2). In the absence of averments u/s 50(1) of the 1984 Act in the complaint, the trial court could not take cognizance against the directors. However, the managing director would be responsible for the company's business. The complaint was quashed against the directors but allowed against the managing director and the company. The Supreme Court's order was modified accordingly.
The court interpreted Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding that managing directors and joint managing directors are responsible for the company's conduct by virtue of their position. Signatories of dishonored checks are also covered u/s 141(2). In the absence of averments u/s 50(1) of the 1984 Act in the complaint, the trial court could not take cognizance against the directors. However, the managing director would be responsible for the company's business. The complaint was quashed against the directors but allowed against the managing director and the company. The Supreme Court's order was modified accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
