Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
