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 SC held that in dishonour of cheque cases under Section 138 read with Section 141, a partnership firm lacks separate legal personality and cannot be prosecuted independently of its partners. The partners are jointly and severally liable, not vicariously, for the offence, distinguishing them from a company which enjoys separate legal identity and vicarious liability of its directors. Consequently, the dismissal of the complaint for non-joinder of the partnership firm as an accused was erroneous. The notice issued to the partners is deemed to include the firm, and the complaint remains maintainable against the partners notwithstanding the firm's absence as a party. The SC set aside the High Court's order and allowed the appeal, permitting the partnership firm to be arraigned as an accused alongside its partners.
The SC held that in dishonour of cheque cases under Section 138 read with Section 141, a partnership firm lacks separate legal personality and cannot be prosecuted independently of its partners. The partners are jointly and severally liable, not vicariously, for the offence, distinguishing them from a company which enjoys separate legal identity and vicarious liability of its directors. Consequently, the dismissal of the complaint for non-joinder of the partnership firm as an accused was erroneous. The notice issued to the partners is deemed to include the firm, and the complaint remains maintainable against the partners notwithstanding the firm's absence as a party. The SC set aside the High Court's order and allowed the appeal, permitting the partnership firm to be arraigned as an accused alongside its partners.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
