Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The HC quashed proceedings against petitioners under Companies Act sections 129/448 for non-disclosure of specified bank notes transactions during demonetization period. The court found the prosecution procedurally defective as the complaint lacked proper satisfaction of prima facie case against the accused. While section 129(7) imposes penalties for non-compliance with financial statement requirements, the court noted that section 439 creates a specific jurisdictional bar requiring complaints be filed by authorized persons. Additionally, the court determined that essential elements of fraud under section 448 were not established, as the auditor merely reported inability to provide details rather than intentional false statements. The HC deemed the proceedings an abuse of process, particularly as no third party was prejudiced by the alleged non-disclosure, and accordingly allowed the application.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
