Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC allowed the revision application in a dishonour of cheque case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant, a company director, filed the complaint in his individual capacity without proper authorization or power of attorney from the company. The agreement was executed between two companies, requiring the complainant to represent the company rather than act personally. While lack of authorization constitutes a curable defect per Supreme Court precedent in M.M.T.C. Ltd. v. Medchl Chemicals, the company failed to rectify this defect at any subsequent stage. The Court held that authorized persons must file complaints on behalf of and in the name of the principal, not in their personal capacity, making the complaint legally impermissible.
The HC allowed the revision application in a dishonour of cheque case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant, a company director, filed the complaint in his individual capacity without proper authorization or power of attorney from the company. The agreement was executed between two companies, requiring the complainant to represent the company rather than act personally. While lack of authorization constitutes a curable defect per Supreme Court precedent in M.M.T.C. Ltd. v. Medchl Chemicals, the company failed to rectify this defect at any subsequent stage. The Court held that authorized persons must file complaints on behalf of and in the name of the principal, not in their personal capacity, making the complaint legally impermissible.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
