https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251557 The court upheld the validity of the summoning order dated 26.03.1987, finding no necessity to examine the complainant or witnesses preliminarily. The nominee director was not held liable for the company's affairs as he solely monitored financial interests. The complaint for the year 1984-85 was deemed without jurisdiction due to the retrospective application of Section 194-A. Additionally, the complaint under Section 276-B for the same year was considered invalid post-amendment. The court concluded that the proceedings against the petitioner constituted an abuse of the legal process, leading to the quashing of the complaint and summoning order. en-us Tue, 05 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Sep 2014 10:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251557 The court upheld the validity of the summoning order dated 26.03.1987, finding no necessity to examine the complainant or witnesses preliminarily. The nominee director was not held liable for the company's affairs as he solely monitored financial interests. The complaint for the year 1984-85 was deemed without jurisdiction due to the retrospective application of Section 194-A. Additionally, the complaint under Section 276-B for the same year was considered invalid post-amendment. The court concluded that the proceedings against the petitioner constituted an abuse of the legal process, leading to the quashing of the complaint and summoning order. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 05 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251557