Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Exempt-income expenditure disallowance is confined to investments that actually generated exempt income, while supported business expenses remain dedu...
Validity of a complaint filed u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act through a Power of Attorney. The court held that it can quash complaints at the pre-trial stage u/s 482 of CrPC if unimpeachable material indicates the accused was not involved or no offense is made out. However, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State, the court must examine whether the factual defense disproves the entire allegations. The complaint mentioned the authorized representative had personal knowledge and competence to file the case. While the petitioner raised questions about the attorney's capability, the extent of knowledge, and the validity of the compromise deed, these issues did not disprove the allegations and can be determined during trial after evidence is led. The court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner raised questions of fact and law better left for adjudication at the trial stage.
Validity of a complaint filed u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act through a Power of Attorney. The court held that it can quash complaints at the pre-trial stage u/s 482 of CrPC if unimpeachable material indicates the accused was not involved or no offense is made out. However, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State, the court must examine whether the factual defense disproves the entire allegations. The complaint mentioned the authorized representative had personal knowledge and competence to file the case. While the petitioner raised questions about the attorney's capability, the extent of knowledge, and the validity of the compromise deed, these issues did not disprove the allegations and can be determined during trial after evidence is led. The court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner raised questions of fact and law better left for adjudication at the trial stage.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
