https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358411 The court held that the petitioner could not be construed as the "Principal Officer" under Section 2(35) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The impugned order naming the petitioner as the Principal Officer was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed without imposing any costs. The court found that the petitioner, as a Non-Executive Chairman residing in Chennai, was not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company and was not responsible for the company's failure to deposit TDS. en-us Wed, 28 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jul 2018 18:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358411 The court held that the petitioner could not be construed as the "Principal Officer" under Section 2(35) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The impugned order naming the petitioner as the Principal Officer was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed without imposing any costs. The court found that the petitioner, as a Non-Executive Chairman residing in Chennai, was not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company and was not responsible for the company's failure to deposit TDS. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 28 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358411