TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the order discharging the accused from prosecution for the offence under Section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was liable to be set aside in view of the common finding that the accused was not shown to be in charge of the company's day-to-day affairs.
Analysis: The impugned discharge order rested on a common factual finding applicable to the accused persons that there was no material showing participation in the day-to-day management of the company. That finding had already been interfered with in respect of the Managing Director in connected proceedings. In these circumstances, the same reasoning could not be allowed to stand against the present accused, while preserving the accused's opportunity before the trial court to establish the absence of material linking him to the company's day-to-day affairs.
Conclusion: The discharge order was set aside as against the accused, and the revision was allowed.
Final Conclusion: The prosecution against the accused was restored for reconsideration on the question of his role in the company's management, and the challenged discharge did not survive.
Ratio Decidendi: A discharge founded on the absence of material showing that a director was in charge of the company's day-to-day affairs cannot be sustained where the common basis for that finding has been set aside and the issue requires fresh examination.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
