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...
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 4827 
Join Channel 
