Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The HC dismissed the petitions and upheld the summoning order in a cheque-dishonour prosecution under the N.I. Act, holding that prima facie material implicated the Applicant as a director "in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business" at the time of the alleged offence. The court applied governing precedent on vicarious liability of directors, recognizing that pleadings need not mirror statutory phrasing so long as they convey the director's active involvement in day-to-day operations and the impugned transactions. The HC found no procedural breach of natural justice warranting quashal and held that the Applicant's denial of involvement is a defence to be adjudicated at trial.
The HC dismissed the petitions and upheld the summoning order in a cheque-dishonour prosecution under the N.I. Act, holding that prima facie material implicated the Applicant as a director "in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business" at the time of the alleged offence. The court applied governing precedent on vicarious liability of directors, recognizing that pleadings need not mirror statutory phrasing so long as they convey the director's active involvement in day-to-day operations and the impugned transactions. The HC found no procedural breach of natural justice warranting quashal and held that the Applicant's denial of involvement is a defence to be adjudicated at trial.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
