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...
SC allowed the appeal and quashed all proceedings against the...
Appeal allowed: Proceedings quashed where company not impleaded; officers cannot be prosecuted on mere vicarious liability without direct-role evidence
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
SC allowed the appeal and quashed all proceedings against the appellants. The Court held that a body corporate must be impleaded before prosecuting its directors or officers on vicarious liability grounds; prosecution of officers alone is impermissible where the company (the Bank) was not accused. Absent unimpeachable material establishing each appellant's direct role, authorization, or deliberate omission linking them to the alleged offence, mere designation or bald assertions of vicarious liability cannot sustain issuance of process. The impugned High Court and Magistrate orders were set aside, Complaint No. 6353 of 2007 was quashed in entirety, and appellants were held entitled to statutory protection under the applicable enactment for acts done in good faith.
SC allowed the appeal and quashed all proceedings against the appellants. The Court held that a body corporate must be impleaded before prosecuting its directors or officers on vicarious liability grounds; prosecution of officers alone is impermissible where the company (the Bank) was not accused. Absent unimpeachable material establishing each appellant's direct role, authorization, or deliberate omission linking them to the alleged offence, mere designation or bald assertions of vicarious liability cannot sustain issuance of process. The impugned High Court and Magistrate orders were set aside, Complaint No. 6353 of 2007 was quashed in entirety, and appellants were held entitled to statutory protection under the applicable enactment for acts done in good faith.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.