Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Pertaining to a challenge against conviction and sentence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court observed that the petitioner's defense of repaying the loan amount in cash without acknowledgment was rightly rejected by the lower courts. The petitioner failed to provide cogent evidence to discharge the presumption against him u/s 139 of the NI Act read with Section 118 of the Evidence Act. The objection regarding the loan being taken in cash, violating the Income Tax Act, does not absolve the petitioner's liability u/s 138. The revision petition lacked merit for interference with the conviction and sentence, leading to its dismissal.
Pertaining to a challenge against conviction and sentence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court observed that the petitioner's defense of repaying the loan amount in cash without acknowledgment was rightly rejected by the lower courts. The petitioner failed to provide cogent evidence to discharge the presumption against him u/s 139 of the NI Act read with Section 118 of the Evidence Act. The objection regarding the loan being taken in cash, violating the Income Tax Act, does not absolve the petitioner's liability u/s 138. The revision petition lacked merit for interference with the conviction and sentence, leading to its dismissal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.