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...
The HC allowed the appeal against dismissal of a recovery suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Trial Court incorrectly interpreted the Magistrate's judgment, which had clearly concluded that the appellant successfully rebutted the presumption of the cheque being issued for a legally enforceable debt. The Trial Court improperly rendered findings contrary to the pleadings by accepting the respondent's defense at the preliminary stage, exceeding the permissible scope of examination under Order VII Rule 11. Additionally, the Trial Court's determination that the suit was time-barred failed to consider whether the cause of action was established prior to the Magistrate's judgment dated 19.08.2017, necessitating reconsideration of the limitation issue.
The HC allowed the appeal against dismissal of a recovery suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Trial Court incorrectly interpreted the Magistrate's judgment, which had clearly concluded that the appellant successfully rebutted the presumption of the cheque being issued for a legally enforceable debt. The Trial Court improperly rendered findings contrary to the pleadings by accepting the respondent's defense at the preliminary stage, exceeding the permissible scope of examination under Order VII Rule 11. Additionally, the Trial Court's determination that the suit was time-barred failed to consider whether the cause of action was established prior to the Magistrate's judgment dated 19.08.2017, necessitating reconsideration of the limitation issue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
