<?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>1994 (3) TMI 9 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18749</link>
    <description>Criminal complaints for failure to deduct tax at source against firm partners require specific averments and supporting material showing that the partners were in charge of and responsible for the firm&#039;s business at the relevant time. Vicarious liability under section 278B of the Income-tax Act does not arise from a bare assertion alone; the complaint must disclose credible facts showing active involvement. For section 194A, &quot;person responsible for paying&quot; must be read with section 204, and partners are not principal officers unless validly treated as such under section 2(35). On that basis, the complaints against the partners were quashed, while the proceedings against the firm continued.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:20:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=57748" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (3) TMI 9 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18749</link>
      <description>Criminal complaints for failure to deduct tax at source against firm partners require specific averments and supporting material showing that the partners were in charge of and responsible for the firm&#039;s business at the relevant time. Vicarious liability under section 278B of the Income-tax Act does not arise from a bare assertion alone; the complaint must disclose credible facts showing active involvement. For section 194A, &quot;person responsible for paying&quot; must be read with section 204, and partners are not principal officers unless validly treated as such under section 2(35). On that basis, the complaints against the partners were quashed, while the proceedings against the firm continued.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18749</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>