Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The court held that even if a debt is time-barred, the issuance of a cheque towards such debt creates a fresh legally enforceable liability u/s 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. This provision deems a written promise to pay a time-barred debt as a valid contract. Consequently, the dishonor of such a cheque can attract penal provisions u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The acquittal order was set aside, recognizing that the furnishing of a cheque for a time-barred debt effectively resurrects the debt itself through a fresh agreement u/s 25(3) of the ICA. Denying the drawee's right to invoke Section 138 despite Section 25(3)'s recognition of a fresh agreement to pay would be an unfortunate disentitlement.
The court held that even if a debt is time-barred, the issuance of a cheque towards such debt creates a fresh legally enforceable liability u/s 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. This provision deems a written promise to pay a time-barred debt as a valid contract. Consequently, the dishonor of such a cheque can attract penal provisions u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The acquittal order was set aside, recognizing that the furnishing of a cheque for a time-barred debt effectively resurrects the debt itself through a fresh agreement u/s 25(3) of the ICA. Denying the drawee's right to invoke Section 138 despite Section 25(3)'s recognition of a fresh agreement to pay would be an unfortunate disentitlement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
