https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21501 The court quashed charges against petitioners 3 to 7 as they were not shown to be in charge of the firm's business. However, charges against the firm (petitioner 1) and the managing partner (petitioner 2) were allowed to continue under Sections 277 and 278B of the Income-tax Act. The court emphasized that partners must be proven to be responsible for the business to be held liable under Section 278B. The prosecution against petitioners 3 to 7 was deemed an abuse of court process due to lack of evidence of their involvement in the firm's operations. en-us Thu, 05 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2014 14:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21501 The court quashed charges against petitioners 3 to 7 as they were not shown to be in charge of the firm's business. However, charges against the firm (petitioner 1) and the managing partner (petitioner 2) were allowed to continue under Sections 277 and 278B of the Income-tax Act. The court emphasized that partners must be proven to be responsible for the business to be held liable under Section 278B. The prosecution against petitioners 3 to 7 was deemed an abuse of court process due to lack of evidence of their involvement in the firm's operations. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 05 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21501