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 an appeal in a cheque dishonour case under Section 139 N.I. Act. Despite admitted cheque issuance by Respondent No.3, the court found the complainant's loan transaction claim lacked credibility. Key inconsistencies included: discrepancies between alleged loan date (June/July 2014) and pronote execution date (07.11.2014); contradictory testimony regarding who filled cheque details; imprudent expectation of Rs.12,00,000 business expansion loan repayment within one month; and illogical monthly interest clause for allegedly one-month loan. The court applied prudent man standard, concluding the entire transaction was suspicious and unreasonable. The Metropolitan Magistrate's acquittal was upheld, with the HC finding no merit in the appeal and dismissing it entirely.
The HC dismissed an appeal in a cheque dishonour case under Section 139 N.I. Act. Despite admitted cheque issuance by Respondent No.3, the court found the complainant's loan transaction claim lacked credibility. Key inconsistencies included: discrepancies between alleged loan date (June/July 2014) and pronote execution date (07.11.2014); contradictory testimony regarding who filled cheque details; imprudent expectation of Rs.12,00,000 business expansion loan repayment within one month; and illogical monthly interest clause for allegedly one-month loan. The court applied prudent man standard, concluding the entire transaction was suspicious and unreasonable. The Metropolitan Magistrate's acquittal was upheld, with the HC finding no merit in the appeal and dismissing it entirely.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
