Business expenditure and depreciation rules allow operational outgoings while limiting disallowances for personal elements and unsupported third-party...
Compromise-and-arrangement extensions may accommodate debt assignment where creditor commercial judgment supports value maximisation and avoids proced...
Delayed-payment surcharge is not taxable tolerance consideration where it penalises default, while meter testing follows electricity distribution trea...
Sufficient cause for delayed revenue income-tax appeals requires bona fides, due diligence and a credible explanation; otherwise limitation bars appea...
The High Court acquitted the petitioner of the charge u/s 278 of the Income Tax Act for abetting the filing of false returns. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the foundational facts of abetment by the petitioner of the assessee Munilal Devi. The non-examination of Munilal Devi as a witness was crucial, as her reply in the show cause notice blaming the petitioner could not be tested through cross-examination. The presumption of culpable mental state u/s 278E could not be invoked without proving the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted and discharged.
The High Court acquitted the petitioner of the charge u/s 278 of the Income Tax Act for abetting the filing of false returns. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the foundational facts of abetment by the petitioner of the assessee Munilal Devi. The non-examination of Munilal Devi as a witness was crucial, as her reply in the show cause notice blaming the petitioner could not be tested through cross-examination. The presumption of culpable mental state u/s 278E could not be invoked without proving the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted and discharged.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
