Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
The petitioner-accused and the complainant-respondent settled the matter related to dishonor of cheque. The High Court accepted the prayer for compounding the offence u/s 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, following the Supreme Court's guidelines in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. Noting the non-obstante clause in Section 147, the Court held that compounding is controlled by this provision, not Section 320 of CrPC. Relying on K. Subramanian v. R. Rajathi, the Court allowed compounding even after conviction. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were quashed, and the petitioner-accused was acquitted u/s 138 of the Act.
The petitioner-accused and the complainant-respondent settled the matter related to dishonor of cheque. The High Court accepted the prayer for compounding the offence u/s 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, following the Supreme Court's guidelines in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. Noting the non-obstante clause in Section 147, the Court held that compounding is controlled by this provision, not Section 320 of CrPC. Relying on K. Subramanian v. R. Rajathi, the Court allowed compounding even after conviction. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were quashed, and the petitioner-accused was acquitted u/s 138 of the Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
