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 dismissed the complainant's application for leave to appeal against acquittal in a dishonored cheque case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 139 by establishing that cheques were issued as security rather than for discharge of legal liability. The complainant's contradictory testimony regarding the year of cheque issuance (2017 versus 2020) shifted the burden to prove legal liability. The complainant failed to establish subsisting liability on the presentation date, as required when cheques are issued as security. The trial court's acquittal was upheld as reasonable, with the HC declining to interfere despite alternative interpretations being possible.
The HC dismissed the complainant's application for leave to appeal against acquittal in a dishonored cheque case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 139 by establishing that cheques were issued as security rather than for discharge of legal liability. The complainant's contradictory testimony regarding the year of cheque issuance (2017 versus 2020) shifted the burden to prove legal liability. The complainant failed to establish subsisting liability on the presentation date, as required when cheques are issued as security. The trial court's acquittal was upheld as reasonable, with the HC declining to interfere despite alternative interpretations being possible.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
