Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Interpretation of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with vicarious liability for offenses committed by companies u/s 138 (dishonor of cheques). The key points are: Section 141 is a penal provision that must be strictly construed. Liability under this section depends on the role played by the person in the company's affairs, not merely their designation. To attract liability, the person must have been in charge of and responsible for the company's conduct at the time of the offense's commission. Merely being a director or having some association with the company is insufficient. The complaint must specify the accused's role and how they were responsible for the company's conduct. In this case, the petitioner had resigned as director before the relevant events (issuance, dishonor, and notice of dishonor of cheque) occurred. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held vicariously liable u/s 141 as they were not in charge or responsible for the company's conduct during the commission of the offense.
Interpretation of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with vicarious liability for offenses committed by companies u/s 138 (dishonor of cheques). The key points are: Section 141 is a penal provision that must be strictly construed. Liability under this section depends on the role played by the person in the company's affairs, not merely their designation. To attract liability, the person must have been in charge of and responsible for the company's conduct at the time of the offense's commission. Merely being a director or having some association with the company is insufficient. The complaint must specify the accused's role and how they were responsible for the company's conduct. In this case, the petitioner had resigned as director before the relevant events (issuance, dishonor, and notice of dishonor of cheque) occurred. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held vicariously liable u/s 141 as they were not in charge or responsible for the company's conduct during the commission of the offense.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
