Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Dishonor of cheque - presumption that cheque was issued in discharge of legal liability, burden on accused to prove contrary. Supreme Court observations: While deciding appeal against acquittal, High Court should see if evidence was properly appreciated, finding illegal or affected by error of law/fact, and if trial court's view was possible based on material. Presumption of innocence gets concretized on acquittal, higher threshold to rebut in appeal. Accused did not prove cheque issued as security. Statement of account showed subsisting liability when cheque issued. Blank cheque can be filled by holder if liability exists as per Bir Singh case. Once presumption drawn, onus shifts to accused as per Rohit bhai case. Complaint cannot be dismissed for want of evidence on debt/liability if cheque dishonored for account closed as per Rohit bhai case. Notice deemed served if refused as per C.C. Alavi case. Ingredients of Section 138 satisfied, trial court erred in acquitting accused. Judgment set aside, accused convicted u/s 138.
Dishonor of cheque - presumption that cheque was issued in discharge of legal liability, burden on accused to prove contrary. Supreme Court observations: While deciding appeal against acquittal, High Court should see if evidence was properly appreciated, finding illegal or affected by error of law/fact, and if trial court's view was possible based on material. Presumption of innocence gets concretized on acquittal, higher threshold to rebut in appeal. Accused did not prove cheque issued as security. Statement of account showed subsisting liability when cheque issued. Blank cheque can be filled by holder if liability exists as per Bir Singh case. Once presumption drawn, onus shifts to accused as per Rohit bhai case. Complaint cannot be dismissed for want of evidence on debt/liability if cheque dishonored for account closed as per Rohit bhai case. Notice deemed served if refused as per C.C. Alavi case. Ingredients of Section 138 satisfied, trial court erred in acquitting accused. Judgment set aside, accused convicted u/s 138.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
