Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
A security cheque was held unenforceable under the Negotiable Instruments Act because the complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt or liability on the date of presentation. The Court noted inconsistent versions about how the cheque came into the complainant's possession, non-examination of the intermediary witness, and no crystallised liability arising from contractual disputes at that stage. In an appeal against acquittal, the Court applied the settled rule that interference is justified only when the acquittal is palpably wrong or legally unsustainable. As the trial court's view was a possible and sound one, the strengthened presumption of innocence was not displaced and the acquittal was affirmed.
A security cheque was held unenforceable under the Negotiable Instruments Act because the complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt or liability on the date of presentation. The Court noted inconsistent versions about how the cheque came into the complainant's possession, non-examination of the intermediary witness, and no crystallised liability arising from contractual disputes at that stage. In an appeal against acquittal, the Court applied the settled rule that interference is justified only when the acquittal is palpably wrong or legally unsustainable. As the trial court's view was a possible and sound one, the strengthened presumption of innocence was not displaced and the acquittal was affirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
