<?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>2019 (5) TMI 1329 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380601</link>
    <description>Failure to deduct or pay tax deducted at source within the prescribed time can attract prosecution under Section 276B independently of Section 201, interest, or penalty proceedings. The statutory scheme treats the deductor as an assessee in default without excluding criminal liability, and prosecution is not barred merely because the tax is later deposited or adjudication on default has not been completed. Section 278AA offers relief only where reasonable cause is proved. The claimed protection under departmental circulars also failed on the facts because no reliable material showed compliance within the extended time, so quashing was refused and prosecution was held maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2019 13:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=572518" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 1329 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380601</link>
      <description>Failure to deduct or pay tax deducted at source within the prescribed time can attract prosecution under Section 276B independently of Section 201, interest, or penalty proceedings. The statutory scheme treats the deductor as an assessee in default without excluding criminal liability, and prosecution is not barred merely because the tax is later deposited or adjudication on default has not been completed. Section 278AA offers relief only where reasonable cause is proved. The claimed protection under departmental circulars also failed on the facts because no reliable material showed compliance within the extended time, so quashing was refused and prosecution was held maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380601</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>