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...
HC discharged petitioner-director from prosecution under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act after finding no prima facie case existed. Petitioner had resigned as director on 18.12.2015 before cheque issuance on 11.03.2016, with resignation properly accepted by company and notified to Registrar of Companies through Form 32. Court held that director whose resignation was duly accepted and notified cannot be held vicariously liable for company's subsequent acts. Relying on precedents including Mohd. Akram Siddiqui and Harshendra Kumar cases, HC determined that public documents establishing resignation could be considered at discharge stage rather than requiring full trial, as continuing prosecution would constitute abuse of process when accusations cannot stand on documentary evidence.
HC discharged petitioner-director from prosecution under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act after finding no prima facie case existed. Petitioner had resigned as director on 18.12.2015 before cheque issuance on 11.03.2016, with resignation properly accepted by company and notified to Registrar of Companies through Form 32. Court held that director whose resignation was duly accepted and notified cannot be held vicariously liable for company's subsequent acts. Relying on precedents including Mohd. Akram Siddiqui and Harshendra Kumar cases, HC determined that public documents establishing resignation could be considered at discharge stage rather than requiring full trial, as continuing prosecution would constitute abuse of process when accusations cannot stand on documentary evidence.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.