https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200164 The Court found that the petitioner, as an employee of the firm, was not responsible for the business conduct or tax obligations of the firm. It was established that the petitioner did not fall under the criteria outlined in Sections 276-B and 278-B of the Income-tax Act or Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the petitioner's liability, leading to the quashing of charges against the petitioner. The criminal revision case was allowed, and the lower court's findings were set aside. en-us Fri, 08 Nov 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Mar 2018 16:45:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200164 The Court found that the petitioner, as an employee of the firm, was not responsible for the business conduct or tax obligations of the firm. It was established that the petitioner did not fall under the criteria outlined in Sections 276-B and 278-B of the Income-tax Act or Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the petitioner's liability, leading to the quashing of charges against the petitioner. The criminal revision case was allowed, and the lower court's findings were set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 08 Nov 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200164