Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.