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 set aside the trial court's acquittal of the respondent under Section 138 of the NI Act for dishonour of cheque due to insufficient funds. The appellant's demand notice was duly issued within the statutory limitation period as prescribed under proviso (b) of Section 138, evidenced by receipt dated 2.11.1993, and no credible evidence was presented by the respondent to dispute the authenticity or service of the notice. The trial court erred in calculating the limitation from the date of receipt of the demand notice instead of from the date of dishonour information. Consequently, the respondent was convicted for the offence under Section 138 NI Act, and the appeal was allowed.
The HC set aside the trial court's acquittal of the respondent under Section 138 of the NI Act for dishonour of cheque due to insufficient funds. The appellant's demand notice was duly issued within the statutory limitation period as prescribed under proviso (b) of Section 138, evidenced by receipt dated 2.11.1993, and no credible evidence was presented by the respondent to dispute the authenticity or service of the notice. The trial court erred in calculating the limitation from the date of receipt of the demand notice instead of from the date of dishonour information. Consequently, the respondent was convicted for the offence under Section 138 NI Act, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
