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 dismissed the petition and upheld the summoning order, holding that a cheque issued as security may assume the character of a cheque issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt for purposes of Section 138 once the underlying liability crystallises. The Court found the complainant averred an existing debt when the cheque was presented and that the cheque had been furnished to secure potential losses under the contract; the complainant had quantified an outstanding liability and presented a cheque accordingly. Whether the cheque amount exceeds the legally recoverable debt is a disputed factual issue for trial, and there was no merit to quash the complaint or set aside the summoning order.
The HC dismissed the petition and upheld the summoning order, holding that a cheque issued as security may assume the character of a cheque issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt for purposes of Section 138 once the underlying liability crystallises. The Court found the complainant averred an existing debt when the cheque was presented and that the cheque had been furnished to secure potential losses under the contract; the complainant had quantified an outstanding liability and presented a cheque accordingly. Whether the cheque amount exceeds the legally recoverable debt is a disputed factual issue for trial, and there was no merit to quash the complaint or set aside the summoning order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
