https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113000 A complaint for an offence punishable only with fine was held time-barred because the six-month limitation under section 468 CrPC applied, the alleged contravention was not a continuing offence, and the explanation for delay did not justify condonation under section 473 CrPC. The court also held that unprovided depreciation of earlier years could not be treated as "excess expenditure" for computing net profits under section 349(4) of the Companies Act, 1956, because depreciation and excess expenditure are distinct deductions and the provision does not create a residuary category for prior-year depreciation. The complaint and summoning order were therefore quashed. en-us Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 May 2012 12:18:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113000 A complaint for an offence punishable only with fine was held time-barred because the six-month limitation under section 468 CrPC applied, the alleged contravention was not a continuing offence, and the explanation for delay did not justify condonation under section 473 CrPC. The court also held that unprovided depreciation of earlier years could not be treated as "excess expenditure" for computing net profits under section 349(4) of the Companies Act, 1956, because depreciation and excess expenditure are distinct deductions and the provision does not create a residuary category for prior-year depreciation. The complaint and summoning order were therefore quashed. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113000