Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
The case involved a dispute regarding the dishonour of cheques, with the key issue being whether the Respondent had a legal obligation to pay back the money under the cheques. The Appellate Court considered the scope of interference in a judgment acquitting the accused and the statutory presumptions u/ss 138 and 139 of the NI Act. The Respondent admitted executing promissory notes and cheques which were later dishonoured. The Court noted that the presumption u/s 139 could be rebutted by the accused with a defense based on a preponderance of probabilities. The Respondent successfully rebutted the presumption by raising doubts about the Petitioner's claims, shifting the burden of proof. The Petitioner failed to discharge this burden, leading to the Respondent's acquittal u/s 138 of the NI Act. The petition seeking leave to appeal was dismissed by the High Court.
The case involved a dispute regarding the dishonour of cheques, with the key issue being whether the Respondent had a legal obligation to pay back the money under the cheques. The Appellate Court considered the scope of interference in a judgment acquitting the accused and the statutory presumptions u/ss 138 and 139 of the NI Act. The Respondent admitted executing promissory notes and cheques which were later dishonoured. The Court noted that the presumption u/s 139 could be rebutted by the accused with a defense based on a preponderance of probabilities. The Respondent successfully rebutted the presumption by raising doubts about the Petitioner's claims, shifting the burden of proof. The Petitioner failed to discharge this burden, leading to the Respondent's acquittal u/s 138 of the NI Act. The petition seeking leave to appeal was dismissed by the High Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
