https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761722 Delhi HC upheld conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act because the accused admitted the cash loan, issuance of the cheques, and their dishonour for insufficiency of funds. The defence of cash repayment failed as no cogent evidence, acknowledgment, or explanation for non-recovery of the cheques was produced, so the statutory presumption under Section 139 read with Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act remained unrebutted. The objection based on the Income-tax Act did not displace liability arising from the admitted cheque transaction, though it may have separate tax consequences. en-us Fri, 16 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Nov 2024 08:38:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761722 Delhi HC upheld conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act because the accused admitted the cash loan, issuance of the cheques, and their dishonour for insufficiency of funds. The defence of cash repayment failed as no cogent evidence, acknowledgment, or explanation for non-recovery of the cheques was produced, so the statutory presumption under Section 139 read with Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act remained unrebutted. The objection based on the Income-tax Act did not displace liability arising from the admitted cheque transaction, though it may have separate tax consequences. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 16 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761722