Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The HC dismissed the writ petition and upheld the revisional court's order, holding that the magistrate lawfully proceeded under the procedural mandate for complaint verification and issuance of process. The court found no perversity or jurisdictional error in retaining criminal proceedings for dishonour of cheque where a signed cheque can constitute a new, legally enforceable promise notwithstanding an earlier time-barred transaction under the Limitation Act, by operation of Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act; past consideration may validate such promise. Questions as to whether the underlying debt is time-barred are factual mixed issues for trial; interference under Section 482 CrPC was not warranted, and the petition was dismissed.
The HC dismissed the writ petition and upheld the revisional court's order, holding that the magistrate lawfully proceeded under the procedural mandate for complaint verification and issuance of process. The court found no perversity or jurisdictional error in retaining criminal proceedings for dishonour of cheque where a signed cheque can constitute a new, legally enforceable promise notwithstanding an earlier time-barred transaction under the Limitation Act, by operation of Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act; past consideration may validate such promise. Questions as to whether the underlying debt is time-barred are factual mixed issues for trial; interference under Section 482 CrPC was not warranted, and the petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
