Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The HC denied leave to appeal against Sumit's acquittal while granting it against Anubhav in a dishonored cheque case. Regarding Sumit (Vice President of Finance), the court held that mere awareness of transactions was insufficient to establish vicarious liability under s.141 NI Act. The complainant failed to discharge the initial evidentiary burden to prove Sumit was "in charge of and responsible to the company." For Anubhav, the court found the appellate judge had improperly emphasized absent documents rather than evaluating available evidence holistically. The HC clarified that when reviewing acquittals, courts should proceed cautiously as the presumption of innocence is reinforced, applying different standards of inquiry at leave stage versus final appeal determination.
The HC denied leave to appeal against Sumit's acquittal while granting it against Anubhav in a dishonored cheque case. Regarding Sumit (Vice President of Finance), the court held that mere awareness of transactions was insufficient to establish vicarious liability under s.141 NI Act. The complainant failed to discharge the initial evidentiary burden to prove Sumit was "in charge of and responsible to the company." For Anubhav, the court found the appellate judge had improperly emphasized absent documents rather than evaluating available evidence holistically. The HC clarified that when reviewing acquittals, courts should proceed cautiously as the presumption of innocence is reinforced, applying different standards of inquiry at leave stage versus final appeal determination.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
