<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2009 (3) TMI 509 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77138</link>
    <description>Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be invoked to prevent miscarriage of justice even after dismissal of a revision against an order framing charge, subject to the facts warranting interference. For prosecution under section 276C(1) of the Income-tax Act, a wilful attempt to evade tax requires deliberate intent. Where appellate tax findings reduce a disallowance and show that the alleged excessive payment issue is reasonably debatable, the material may not establish that essential mental element. The stated application of these principles resulted in quashing the charge against the individual petitioner while allowing the complaint to continue against the company.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 18:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=115312" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 509 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77138</link>
      <description>Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be invoked to prevent miscarriage of justice even after dismissal of a revision against an order framing charge, subject to the facts warranting interference. For prosecution under section 276C(1) of the Income-tax Act, a wilful attempt to evade tax requires deliberate intent. Where appellate tax findings reduce a disallowance and show that the alleged excessive payment issue is reasonably debatable, the material may not establish that essential mental element. The stated application of these principles resulted in quashing the charge against the individual petitioner while allowing the complaint to continue against the company.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77138</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>