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...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
The court held that mere suspicion against the respondent, a bank official, is not enough to frame charges in a case involving alleged conspiracy and misconduct in sanctioning credit facilities to a company. The proposal went through various committees, including the Loan Advisory Committee, and was approved by higher authorities like the Chief General Manager (Credit) and Executive Director. The respondent's role was limited to signing the memorandum after it was approved by others. The fact that the proposal was processed quickly does not constitute an offense. No material evidence showed any accused other than bank officials met the respondent before sanction. Based on the charge sheet material, the respondent's complicity was not established, and the court dismissed the appeal against the impugned order.
The court held that mere suspicion against the respondent, a bank official, is not enough to frame charges in a case involving alleged conspiracy and misconduct in sanctioning credit facilities to a company. The proposal went through various committees, including the Loan Advisory Committee, and was approved by higher authorities like the Chief General Manager (Credit) and Executive Director. The respondent's role was limited to signing the memorandum after it was approved by others. The fact that the proposal was processed quickly does not constitute an offense. No material evidence showed any accused other than bank officials met the respondent before sanction. Based on the charge sheet material, the respondent's complicity was not established, and the court dismissed the appeal against the impugned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
