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 impugned order of the ASJ, holding that Respondent No. 2, as one of the two directors of the accused company, is vicariously liable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act for the dishonour of the cheque. The court emphasized that mere assertion of directorship coupled with specific averments of being in charge and responsible for the company's business suffices to invoke liability, without requiring verbatim statutory language. The court rejected the contention that the complaint failed to demonstrate Respondent No. 2's involvement in day-to-day affairs, aligning with precedent that the essence of allegations prevails over formalistic pleading. Consequently, Respondent No. 2's liability stands affirmed, and the petition challenging the complaint's maintainability is dismissed.
The HC set aside the impugned order of the ASJ, holding that Respondent No. 2, as one of the two directors of the accused company, is vicariously liable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act for the dishonour of the cheque. The court emphasized that mere assertion of directorship coupled with specific averments of being in charge and responsible for the company's business suffices to invoke liability, without requiring verbatim statutory language. The court rejected the contention that the complaint failed to demonstrate Respondent No. 2's involvement in day-to-day affairs, aligning with precedent that the essence of allegations prevails over formalistic pleading. Consequently, Respondent No. 2's liability stands affirmed, and the petition challenging the complaint's maintainability is dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
