<?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>1993 (10) TMI 28 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20003</link>
    <description>The court partially accepted the petition to quash a complaint under section 276E of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against certain partners not directly involved in filing the return. The complaint was quashed for two women and a son who were not directly implicated. However, the complaint against other partners directly involved in filing and verifying the return was dismissed. Additionally, a partner not involved in verifying the return successfully quashed the complaint against her. The court directed the trial court to proceed against the co-accused with sufficient evidence. The analysis addressed issues of quashing complaints, retrospective amendment application, and partners&#039; liability in a partnership-firm.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:08:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=59002" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (10) TMI 28 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20003</link>
      <description>The court partially accepted the petition to quash a complaint under section 276E of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against certain partners not directly involved in filing the return. The complaint was quashed for two women and a son who were not directly implicated. However, the complaint against other partners directly involved in filing and verifying the return was dismissed. Additionally, a partner not involved in verifying the return successfully quashed the complaint against her. The court directed the trial court to proceed against the co-accused with sufficient evidence. The analysis addressed issues of quashing complaints, retrospective amendment application, and partners&#039; liability in a partnership-firm.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20003</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>