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...
A director of a company cannot evade vicarious liability for the offence of dishonor of cheque u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by merely claiming to be a housewife and not involved in the company's affairs. The High Court held that while exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 CrPC to quash a complaint, it must be extremely cautious and do so only in rarest of rare cases where allegations are patently absurd and inherently improbable. The Supreme Court in S.P. Mani & Mohan Dairy v. Snehalatha Elangovan clarified that Section 141 extends criminal liability to every person in charge and responsible for the company's conduct at the time of the offence. The director, being one of only three directors, cannot claim to be unaware or uninvolved in the day-to-day affairs. Such contentions are matters for trial, and in the absence of unimpeachable evidence, the summoning order cannot be quashed at this stage. The petition was dismissed.
A director of a company cannot evade vicarious liability for the offence of dishonor of cheque u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by merely claiming to be a housewife and not involved in the company's affairs. The High Court held that while exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 CrPC to quash a complaint, it must be extremely cautious and do so only in rarest of rare cases where allegations are patently absurd and inherently improbable. The Supreme Court in S.P. Mani & Mohan Dairy v. Snehalatha Elangovan clarified that Section 141 extends criminal liability to every person in charge and responsible for the company's conduct at the time of the offence. The director, being one of only three directors, cannot claim to be unaware or uninvolved in the day-to-day affairs. Such contentions are matters for trial, and in the absence of unimpeachable evidence, the summoning order cannot be quashed at this stage. The petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
