Case Law Details
Case Name : P.C. Hari Vs Shine Varghese (Kerala High Court)
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
All High Courts Kerala High Court
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Login here to access.
P.C. Hari Vs Shine Varghese (Kerala High Court)
Digital India push reflected in Court’s approach to Cash Deals- Cash Loans Above ₹20,000 Violate Income Tax Law, Not Enforceable Under NI Act: Kerala High Court
The revision petitioner (accused) was convicted u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a cheque of ₹9,00,000, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The alleged loan was paid in cash by the complainant. Both the trial court & the appellate court upheld the conviction & sentence.
Also read: Cash Loans Above ₹20,000 Enforceable Despite Section 269S...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Author Bio
This decsion is overruled by the Supreme Court
pls refer my post at-
https://taxguru.in/income-tax/cash-loans-rs-20000-enforceable-section-269ss-violation-sc.html
good information are being published , grow more informations and develop to help the information to the public who are suffering in the litigation
Sometime,without going in details we took wrong perception।
In this case, complainant accepted blindly that the sum paid was unaccounted ,he may simply give a valid reason that the sum paid was arranged by Friends,relatives,sale of gold,property or any receipts which were not effective directly his ITR ,
Simply accepted that amount paid was unaccounted but the valid reason u/s 237 was missing,this was a gross mistake in this case।
my personal views oly।।
The decision is not proper ..
There is no law which restrict giving of loan above 20000.
269SS penalise receipt of loan of 20000 or above …
Pls read the entire decision to appreciate it
IN A SIMILAR case of cash loan of say 5 lakh court give decision in favour of loan giver. loan giver was minister son .
The earlier decision on the same issue is distinguished- pls read the full judgment which is self explanatory