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 upheld the conviction of A1 under S.138 NI Act, affirming the findings of the Trial Ct and Appellate Ct. A1 admitted his signatures on the cheques, thereby attracting statutory presumptions under Ss.118, 139 and 20 NI Act that the instruments were issued towards a legally enforceable debt. The defence that the cheques were given blank for a property transaction, and not in discharge of liability, was held unsubstantiated, as A1 failed to produce cogent evidence, independent witnesses, or documents to rebut the presumptions. The HC further held that any breach of S.269SS IT Act does not render the debt unenforceable for S.138 NI Act. Finding no perversity or illegality, the HC maintained the sentence and dismissed the revision petition.
The HC upheld the conviction of A1 under S.138 NI Act, affirming the findings of the Trial Ct and Appellate Ct. A1 admitted his signatures on the cheques, thereby attracting statutory presumptions under Ss.118, 139 and 20 NI Act that the instruments were issued towards a legally enforceable debt. The defence that the cheques were given blank for a property transaction, and not in discharge of liability, was held unsubstantiated, as A1 failed to produce cogent evidence, independent witnesses, or documents to rebut the presumptions. The HC further held that any breach of S.269SS IT Act does not render the debt unenforceable for S.138 NI Act. Finding no perversity or illegality, the HC maintained the sentence and dismissed the revision petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.