We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic • Quick overview summary answering your query with references• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced • Includes everything in Basic • Detailed report covering: - Overview Summary - Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars] - Relevant Case Laws - Tariff / Classification / HSN - Expert views from TaxTMI - Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
<h1>Court quashes partner's prosecution under Income-tax Act, stresses specific averments.</h1> The High Court of Patna quashed the prosecution against one partner in a case under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but allowed it to ... Prosecution of firm and partners for offences under the Income-tax Act - requirement of specific averment that partners or directors were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business - offences under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act - quashing of prosecution for want of specific avermentRequirement of specific averment that partners or directors were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business - quashing of prosecution for want of specific averment - Prosecution of the individual partner, Lakhan Lal Sao, was vitiated for lack of specific averment that he was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the firm's business at the time of the alleged offence. - HELD THAT: - The court applied the settled principle that when a prosecution is launched under the Act for offences allegedly committed by a firm or company, the complaint must contain specific averments that the individual partner or director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the relevant time. Absent such averment, prosecution of him is not sustainable. The complaint in the present case did not make the required specific allegation against the partner petitioner and therefore his prosecution could not be maintained.Prosecution against the partner petitioner, Lakhan Lal Sao, quashed.Prosecution of firm and partners for offences under the Income-tax Act - offences under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act - Proceedings against the firm, M/s Ganesh Steel Traders, were held to be maintainable and permitted to continue. - HELD THAT: - The complaint contained allegations against the firm itself regarding undisclosed cash sales and omitted income, and there is no legal bar to prosecuting the firm on those allegations. The court distinguished the requirement applicable to individual partners from the position of the firm as an entity and observed that, on the material before it, prosecution of the firm could proceed.Prosecution against the firm, M/s Ganesh Steel Traders, shall continue.Final Conclusion: The petition succeeds insofar as the individual partner's prosecution is quashed for want of the necessary specific averment; the prosecution against the firm is held maintainable and is allowed to continue. The High Court of Patna quashed the prosecution against one of the partners in a case involving sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but allowed the prosecution to continue against the firm. The court ruled that specific averments are required in the complaint for prosecuting partners of a firm in such cases. The judgment was delivered by Justice Nagendra Rai.
TaxTMI 
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
