<?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>2009 (12) TMI 1028 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280154</link>
    <description>Criminal liability of directors and office-bearers requires specific factual allegations establishing their personal participation; it cannot arise solely from their corporate positions where no statutory vicarious liability applies. General allegations did not identify who forged documents, authorised share sales, or appropriated proceeds, so summons issued to the individuals were set aside. Cheating requires deception and fraudulent or dishonest inducement from the inception. A dispute over the amount payable, delayed-payment charges, and adjustment of sale proceeds towards other liabilities did not independently establish cheating. Proceedings against the company continued only for allegations and provisions supported by a prima facie case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2019 14:31:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=568053" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (12) TMI 1028 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280154</link>
      <description>Criminal liability of directors and office-bearers requires specific factual allegations establishing their personal participation; it cannot arise solely from their corporate positions where no statutory vicarious liability applies. General allegations did not identify who forged documents, authorised share sales, or appropriated proceeds, so summons issued to the individuals were set aside. Cheating requires deception and fraudulent or dishonest inducement from the inception. A dispute over the amount payable, delayed-payment charges, and adjustment of sale proceeds towards other liabilities did not independently establish cheating. Proceedings against the company continued only for allegations and provisions supported by a prima facie case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280154</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>