<?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>1987 (7) TMI 499 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101515</link>
    <description>Criminal prosecution under the Income-tax Act against a company was found unsustainable where the relevant penal provision required rigorous imprisonment as part of the punishment and the accused was a body corporate incapable of being sentenced to imprisonment. The commentary notes that mens rea was an essential element of the alleged offence, but the statutory punishment scheme could not be adapted to a company by judicial interpretation. It also records that proceedings against company officers need not depend on simultaneous prosecution of the company, so continuing the case against the company itself served no useful purpose and was liable to be quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:28:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138564" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (7) TMI 499 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101515</link>
      <description>Criminal prosecution under the Income-tax Act against a company was found unsustainable where the relevant penal provision required rigorous imprisonment as part of the punishment and the accused was a body corporate incapable of being sentenced to imprisonment. The commentary notes that mens rea was an essential element of the alleged offence, but the statutory punishment scheme could not be adapted to a company by judicial interpretation. It also records that proceedings against company officers need not depend on simultaneous prosecution of the company, so continuing the case against the company itself served no useful purpose and was liable to be quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101515</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>