Co-operative society's mandatory reserve and share capital fixed deposits with banks-interest treated as business income under 80P(2)(a)(iii) deductio...
Income tax reassessment reopening after four years on investigation tip, without s.147 proviso disclosure failure, struck down as borrowed satisfactio...
The complaint by a Deputy Registrar was held maintainable under the Companies Act, but the prosecution was barred on substantive grounds: the alleged offence involved omission rather than a deliberate false statement, so the mens rea element for a Section 448-type false statement offence is absent, and the complaint contains no specific allegation of knowing falsity. Separately, the company was not arraigned and vicarious liability of directors cannot be imposed absent statutory provision and the company as primary offender; continuation would be abuse of process and the proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.
The complaint by a Deputy Registrar was held maintainable under the Companies Act, but the prosecution was barred on substantive grounds: the alleged offence involved omission rather than a deliberate false statement, so the mens rea element for a Section 448-type false statement offence is absent, and the complaint contains no specific allegation of knowing falsity. Separately, the company was not arraigned and vicarious liability of directors cannot be imposed absent statutory provision and the company as primary offender; continuation would be abuse of process and the proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.