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" ?
Cheque dishonoured due to signature being different from the petitioner, implying Bhagawat Daulat Gawali had no authority to sign on behalf of the petitioner-accused or his proprietorship firm. Cheque does not bear petitioner-accused's signature, so cannot be held liable for issuance or dishonour u/s 138 of NI Act, 1881. Respondent's assertion that Gawali issued cheque on behalf of petitioner-accused to discharge liability is untenable u/s 138, which is specific and applicable only to drawer and drawee. No third party can be summoned u/s 138. Petitioner-accused, not being signatory, cannot be summoned in complaint case filed by respondent u/s 138. Summoning order dated 01.02.2021 is illegal and set aside.
Cheque dishonoured due to signature being different from the petitioner, implying Bhagawat Daulat Gawali had no authority to sign on behalf of the petitioner-accused or his proprietorship firm. Cheque does not bear petitioner-accused's signature, so cannot be held liable for issuance or dishonour u/s 138 of NI Act, 1881. Respondent's assertion that Gawali issued cheque on behalf of petitioner-accused to discharge liability is untenable u/s 138, which is specific and applicable only to drawer and drawee. No third party can be summoned u/s 138. Petitioner-accused, not being signatory, cannot be summoned in complaint case filed by respondent u/s 138. Summoning order dated 01.02.2021 is illegal and set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
