Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6681 to 6700 of 96406 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
In a cheque dishonour appeal against acquittal, the court held that interference with an acquittal is warranted only if the view is perverse or based on misreading/omission of material evidence, and a plausible view must be respected. Although the accused admitted the cheque signature, the complainant's cross-examination rendered his financial capacity doubtful, displacing the presumption of legally enforceable liability. Further, the loan was alleged to have been advanced in 2014 without specific dates, while the cheque was issued in November 2017; on these pleadings the cheque related to a time-barred debt and did not attract Section 138 NI Act, rendering the complaint not maintainable. Non-compliance with Section 269SS IT Act did not justify adverse inference; the appeal was dismissed - HC
In a cheque dishonour appeal against acquittal, the court held that interference with an acquittal is warranted only if the view is perverse or based on misreading/omission of material evidence, and a plausible view must be respected. Although the accused admitted the cheque signature, the complainant's cross-examination rendered his financial capacity doubtful, displacing the presumption of legally enforceable liability. Further, the loan was alleged to have been advanced in 2014 without specific dates, while the cheque was issued in November 2017; on these pleadings the cheque related to a time-barred debt and did not attract Section 138 NI Act, rendering the complaint not maintainable. Non-compliance with Section 269SS IT Act did not justify adverse inference; the appeal was dismissed - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
