Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
HC analyzed a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellant failed to establish a prima facie case as the accused successfully rebutted the presumption by demonstrating sufficient account balance and issuing a valid stop payment instruction. The court found the trial court's reasoning sound, highlighting that stop payment without insufficient funds does not automatically attract criminal liability. The accused effectively discharged the evidentiary burden by presenting documentary evidence (Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-19) proving no intentional default. Consequently, the criminal appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower court's acquittal order.
HC analyzed a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellant failed to establish a prima facie case as the accused successfully rebutted the presumption by demonstrating sufficient account balance and issuing a valid stop payment instruction. The court found the trial court's reasoning sound, highlighting that stop payment without insufficient funds does not automatically attract criminal liability. The accused effectively discharged the evidentiary burden by presenting documentary evidence (Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-19) proving no intentional default. Consequently, the criminal appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower court's acquittal order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
