https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98859 Liability for tax deduction at source required proof that the accused were the statutory principal officers and that tax was actually deducted from dividends. The court noted that a managing director is not automatically a principal officer under section 2(35) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and no notice treating the respondent as such was shown. The evidence was also uncertain on whether dividends were validly distributed and whether tax was in fact deducted. A prosecution under the 1961 Act could not be sustained for conduct already completed under the 1922 Act, and Article 20(1) barred ex post facto prosecution. The acquittal was therefore maintained. en-us Tue, 01 Jun 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:59:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98859 Liability for tax deduction at source required proof that the accused were the statutory principal officers and that tax was actually deducted from dividends. The court noted that a managing director is not automatically a principal officer under section 2(35) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and no notice treating the respondent as such was shown. The evidence was also uncertain on whether dividends were validly distributed and whether tax was in fact deducted. A prosecution under the 1961 Act could not be sustained for conduct already completed under the 1922 Act, and Article 20(1) barred ex post facto prosecution. The acquittal was therefore maintained. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 01 Jun 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98859