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 held that the Petitioner, who resigned as Director on 14.05.2015, cannot be held vicariously liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheques dated 04.10.2016 and 20.12.2016. The court found no specific evidence connecting the Petitioner to the dishonoured cheques or the underlying debt. Following the Supreme Court's precedent in a similar case, the court emphasized that a former director cannot be held responsible for company affairs after resignation. The Petitioner was neither a signatory to the cheques nor part of the promissory note, thus rendering the vicarious liability claim unsustainable. Petition allowed.
HC held that the Petitioner, who resigned as Director on 14.05.2015, cannot be held vicariously liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheques dated 04.10.2016 and 20.12.2016. The court found no specific evidence connecting the Petitioner to the dishonoured cheques or the underlying debt. Following the Supreme Court's precedent in a similar case, the court emphasized that a former director cannot be held responsible for company affairs after resignation. The Petitioner was neither a signatory to the cheques nor part of the promissory note, thus rendering the vicarious liability claim unsustainable. Petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.