Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The HC allowed the criminal application and quashed proceedings against the Applicant, a part-time director, holding that the complaint fails to plead specific allegations required under s.278B(2) of the Income Tax Act to impute liability for offences committed by the Company. Applying controlling Supreme Court precedent, the HC found that mere averments that all directors are "in charge and responsible" of the Company are insufficient; there must be particularised allegations of consent, connivance or neglect demonstrating involvement in day-to-day management or business operations. Absent such specific pleading, the Director cannot be deemed guilty under s.278B(2), and prosecution against the Applicant was therefore not maintainable.
The HC allowed the criminal application and quashed proceedings against the Applicant, a part-time director, holding that the complaint fails to plead specific allegations required under s.278B(2) of the Income Tax Act to impute liability for offences committed by the Company. Applying controlling Supreme Court precedent, the HC found that mere averments that all directors are "in charge and responsible" of the Company are insufficient; there must be particularised allegations of consent, connivance or neglect demonstrating involvement in day-to-day management or business operations. Absent such specific pleading, the Director cannot be deemed guilty under s.278B(2), and prosecution against the Applicant was therefore not maintainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
