Expenditure tied to investments yielding exempt income restricted to attributable costs; broader disallowance disallowed and adjustments to WDV and mi...
Admissibility of Investigative Statements invalidated reliance on coerced emails and valuation redetermination, resulting in set aside of penalties an...
Classification of printed technical documents: specific Chapter 49.01 entry prevails, enabling claimed customs exemptions for imported manuals and rep...
Attachment of Pre Offence Mortgaged Property remains possible under PMLA; secured creditors may pursue statutory claim and seek auction with undertaki...
Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act created a statutory presumption in favour of the complainant where the accused's cheques were signed, dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, and the notice referred to an acknowledged liability. The accused failed to rebut that presumption by proving that Yahoo Limited had taken over the entire liability or that the complainant had accepted performance from that third party; the cheque-on-security plea also did not defeat liability once the debt matured. Pendency of civil proceedings did not bar prosecution, and the High Court declined to disturb concurrent factual findings in revision absent perversity. Conviction under Section 138 was therefore sustained, but the appellate court could not suo motu enhance the default sentence in the accused's appeal, so that enhancement was set aside and the trial sentence restored.
Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act created a statutory presumption in favour of the complainant where the accused's cheques were signed, dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, and the notice referred to an acknowledged liability. The accused failed to rebut that presumption by proving that Yahoo Limited had taken over the entire liability or that the complainant had accepted performance from that third party; the cheque-on-security plea also did not defeat liability once the debt matured. Pendency of civil proceedings did not bar prosecution, and the High Court declined to disturb concurrent factual findings in revision absent perversity. Conviction under Section 138 was therefore sustained, but the appellate court could not suo motu enhance the default sentence in the accused's appeal, so that enhancement was set aside and the trial sentence restored.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
