https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369542 Delhi HC held that prosecution for failure to furnish a return of income under the Income-tax Act is not barred because the return was filed belatedly, assessment proceedings were completed, or no penalty under section 271F was imposed. The offence under section 276CC arises when the return is not filed within the prescribed time, and questions about delay and defence remain matters for trial; the prosecution sanction was also upheld. The Court further held that section 278B can extend vicarious liability to company officers, and section 140(c) does not confer blanket immunity on managing directors or other directors from prosecution for the company's default. en-us Mon, 01 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Oct 2018 10:04:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369542 Delhi HC held that prosecution for failure to furnish a return of income under the Income-tax Act is not barred because the return was filed belatedly, assessment proceedings were completed, or no penalty under section 271F was imposed. The offence under section 276CC arises when the return is not filed within the prescribed time, and questions about delay and defence remain matters for trial; the prosecution sanction was also upheld. The Court further held that section 278B can extend vicarious liability to company officers, and section 140(c) does not confer blanket immunity on managing directors or other directors from prosecution for the company's default. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 01 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369542