Unlawful outward remittances via Hawala using proforma invoices and electronic records proved; documents admitted, directors penalised, penalties redu...
Attachment of equivalent-value properties as proceeds of crime upheld; preventive attachment order and confirmation sustained; no independent ED reinv...
Liability for non-remittance of TDS rests with those responsible for corporate affairs; petitioner may challenge assessment orders as based on the company's erroneous TDS declaration and is entitled to pursue the statutory appellate remedy under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, which must be followed rather than seeking Article 226 review. The Official Liquidator failed to consider the petitioner's representation; the court directed the Liquidator to consider instituting appeals and placed a temporary bar on precipitative recovery or prosecution until the representation is decided or the appeal period expires.
Liability for non-remittance of TDS rests with those responsible for corporate affairs; petitioner may challenge assessment orders as based on the company's erroneous TDS declaration and is entitled to pursue the statutory appellate remedy under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, which must be followed rather than seeking Article 226 review. The Official Liquidator failed to consider the petitioner's representation; the court directed the Liquidator to consider instituting appeals and placed a temporary bar on precipitative recovery or prosecution until the representation is decided or the appeal period expires.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
