https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241061 The court held that the term "tax due" in Section 179 of the Income Tax Act did not include penalty and interest prior to an amendment in 2013. The petitioner, an inactive Director, successfully demonstrated her non-involvement in the company's affairs, leading to the court ruling that recovery from her was unjustified. The court found the CIT's decision to hold her liable for the company's tax dues as incorrect due to lack of evidence of neglect or breach of duty. Consequently, the court set aside the orders against the petitioner, allowing the writ petition with costs. en-us Fri, 13 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Apr 2017 12:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241061 The court held that the term "tax due" in Section 179 of the Income Tax Act did not include penalty and interest prior to an amendment in 2013. The petitioner, an inactive Director, successfully demonstrated her non-involvement in the company's affairs, leading to the court ruling that recovery from her was unjustified. The court found the CIT's decision to hold her liable for the company's tax dues as incorrect due to lack of evidence of neglect or breach of duty. Consequently, the court set aside the orders against the petitioner, allowing the writ petition with costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 13 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241061