<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1998 (7) TMI 13 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14938</link>
    <description>Prosecution for failure to deduct or remit tax deducted at source under section 276B cannot be maintained against directors as principal officers unless the statutory notice under section 2(35)(b) is issued where required. The note also states that delayed remittance is not penal if the prosecution cannot prove absence of reasonable cause or excuse beyond reasonable doubt, particularly where financial stringency and losses are shown. Allegations of cheating under sections 420 and 511 fail without clear dishonest inducement or attempt to deceive the Revenue. The authorisation to prosecute under section 279(1) was treated as valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:06:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=53938" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 13 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14938</link>
      <description>Prosecution for failure to deduct or remit tax deducted at source under section 276B cannot be maintained against directors as principal officers unless the statutory notice under section 2(35)(b) is issued where required. The note also states that delayed remittance is not penal if the prosecution cannot prove absence of reasonable cause or excuse beyond reasonable doubt, particularly where financial stringency and losses are shown. Allegations of cheating under sections 420 and 511 fail without clear dishonest inducement or attempt to deceive the Revenue. The authorisation to prosecute under section 279(1) was treated as valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14938</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>