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 a criminal revision petition challenging conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheque dishonour. The petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 6,00,000/- which was dishonoured twice due to insufficient funds. The Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the petitioner and imposed a fine of Rs. 10,65,000/-. The HC upheld the conviction, finding the loan and non-repayment established on balance of probabilities. Regarding jurisdictional challenge, the HC held that under the special provisions of Section 138, the Metropolitan Magistrate possessed authority to impose fine up to twice the cheque amount, making the imposed fine legally valid despite exceeding general Cr.P.C. limits under Section 29.
The HC dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheque dishonour. The petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 6,00,000/- which was dishonoured twice due to insufficient funds. The Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the petitioner and imposed a fine of Rs. 10,65,000/-. The HC upheld the conviction, finding the loan and non-repayment established on balance of probabilities. Regarding jurisdictional challenge, the HC held that under the special provisions of Section 138, the Metropolitan Magistrate possessed authority to impose fine up to twice the cheque amount, making the imposed fine legally valid despite exceeding general Cr.P.C. limits under Section 29.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
