Genuineness of investment evidence determines LTCG entitlement; non specific regulatory reports cannot displace transaction specific documentary proof...
Page of 4816
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5881 to 5900 of 96301 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act that a cheque was issued for discharge of debt was drawn in favour of the holder on admission of signature, and the accused failed to rebut the rebuttable presumptions under sections 118 and 139 by only raising a probable defence on preponderance of probabilities; consequently the High Court set aside the magistrate's acquittal and convicted the accused for dishonour of cheque under section 138. The court held that filling of particulars in a signed blank cheque by a third party was immaterial, imposed a fine (with default imprisonment) and directed compensation to the complainant under criminal procedure.
Presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act that a cheque was issued for discharge of debt was drawn in favour of the holder on admission of signature, and the accused failed to rebut the rebuttable presumptions under sections 118 and 139 by only raising a probable defence on preponderance of probabilities; consequently the High Court set aside the magistrate's acquittal and convicted the accused for dishonour of cheque under section 138. The court held that filling of particulars in a signed blank cheque by a third party was immaterial, imposed a fine (with default imprisonment) and directed compensation to the complainant under criminal procedure.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
