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...
Dishonor of cheque case - vicarious liability of directors u/s 138 read with Sections 141 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Court held specific, unambiguous averments required in complaint to establish director's role and responsibility for company's conduct. Mere designation insufficient; complainant must show how accused was in charge of day-to-day affairs. Section 141 raises legal fiction of vicarious liability but strict compliance with statutory requirements necessary. Complaint lacked specific allegations against petitioner directors, who were non-executive/independent directors. Sections 138 and 141 aimed at enhancing credibility of negotiable instruments, not misuse. Penal provisions to be strictly construed. Complaint insufficient to attract Section 141, hence summoning order against petitioners quashed. Petition allowed.
Dishonor of cheque case - vicarious liability of directors u/s 138 read with Sections 141 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Court held specific, unambiguous averments required in complaint to establish director's role and responsibility for company's conduct. Mere designation insufficient; complainant must show how accused was in charge of day-to-day affairs. Section 141 raises legal fiction of vicarious liability but strict compliance with statutory requirements necessary. Complaint lacked specific allegations against petitioner directors, who were non-executive/independent directors. Sections 138 and 141 aimed at enhancing credibility of negotiable instruments, not misuse. Penal provisions to be strictly construed. Complaint insufficient to attract Section 141, hence summoning order against petitioners quashed. Petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.