Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
The complaint by a Deputy Registrar was held maintainable under the Companies Act, but the prosecution was barred on substantive grounds: the alleged offence involved omission rather than a deliberate false statement, so the mens rea element for a Section 448-type false statement offence is absent, and the complaint contains no specific allegation of knowing falsity. Separately, the company was not arraigned and vicarious liability of directors cannot be imposed absent statutory provision and the company as primary offender; continuation would be abuse of process and the proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.
The complaint by a Deputy Registrar was held maintainable under the Companies Act, but the prosecution was barred on substantive grounds: the alleged offence involved omission rather than a deliberate false statement, so the mens rea element for a Section 448-type false statement offence is absent, and the complaint contains no specific allegation of knowing falsity. Separately, the company was not arraigned and vicarious liability of directors cannot be imposed absent statutory provision and the company as primary offender; continuation would be abuse of process and the proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
