Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
