Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
HC ruled in favor of company directors, quashing criminal proceedings under NI Act for dishonored cheques. Court determined petitioners successfully demonstrated they were not responsible for company's business conduct when offense occurred. Following precedent from Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan case, HC found unimpeachable evidence at pre-trial stage showing directors lacked involvement in cheque transactions. Complaint failed to establish specific roles of directors or their control over business operations. Mere directorship was insufficient to trigger vicarious liability under Section 141 NI Act. Court emphasized requirement for clear evidence of direct responsibility in company management for criminal liability to attach. Petition allowed, proceedings against directors terminated.
HC ruled in favor of company directors, quashing criminal proceedings under NI Act for dishonored cheques. Court determined petitioners successfully demonstrated they were not responsible for company's business conduct when offense occurred. Following precedent from Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan case, HC found unimpeachable evidence at pre-trial stage showing directors lacked involvement in cheque transactions. Complaint failed to establish specific roles of directors or their control over business operations. Mere directorship was insufficient to trigger vicarious liability under Section 141 NI Act. Court emphasized requirement for clear evidence of direct responsibility in company management for criminal liability to attach. Petition allowed, proceedings against directors terminated.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
