Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
The HC dismissed the petition and upheld the trial court's order directing refund of the Rs.1,00,000 deposited under s.143A of the N.I. Act to the accused/appellant. The appellate court had set aside the conviction and compensation order, leaving no subsisting order against the accused; consequently the deposited amount cannot be retained or adjusted as interim compensation in a fresh complaint filed under s.142(1)(b) of the N.I. Act absent any interlocutory order granting such relief. The HC found no perversity or illegality in the trial court's reasoning and declined to interfere, affirming the accused's right to refund and dismissing the petition.
The HC dismissed the petition and upheld the trial court's order directing refund of the Rs.1,00,000 deposited under s.143A of the N.I. Act to the accused/appellant. The appellate court had set aside the conviction and compensation order, leaving no subsisting order against the accused; consequently the deposited amount cannot be retained or adjusted as interim compensation in a fresh complaint filed under s.142(1)(b) of the N.I. Act absent any interlocutory order granting such relief. The HC found no perversity or illegality in the trial court's reasoning and declined to interfere, affirming the accused's right to refund and dismissing the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.