https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11123 A later amendment creating vicarious liability under section 278B of the Income-tax Act could not be applied to a false return filed before that provision came into force, so prosecution of the partner was not sustainable. The firm also could not be prosecuted for the alleged offence because, on the relevant date, section 277 prescribed imprisonment only, and a juristic entity cannot be sentenced to imprisonment. The complaint and connected proceedings were therefore treated as an abuse of process and quashed against the petitioners. en-us Wed, 06 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11123 A later amendment creating vicarious liability under section 278B of the Income-tax Act could not be applied to a false return filed before that provision came into force, so prosecution of the partner was not sustainable. The firm also could not be prosecuted for the alleged offence because, on the relevant date, section 277 prescribed imprisonment only, and a juristic entity cannot be sentenced to imprisonment. The complaint and connected proceedings were therefore treated as an abuse of process and quashed against the petitioners. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 06 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11123