<?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>1992 (1) TMI 54 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21520</link>
    <description>Specific averments that the partners were responsible for the firm&#039;s business and had participated in filing false returns, fabricating evidence, and deceiving the tax were sufficient to resist quashing under inherent jurisdiction. At the complaint stage, only the allegations and supporting materials could be examined, and the pleaded facts prima facie disclosed the offences alleged. A settlement limited to the concealed income did not imply any bar on prosecution, revised returns filed after search and after assessment did not erase the alleged criminality, and pending appeals against penalty orders did not prevent prosecution. The administrative circular relied on was inapplicable because prosecution had begun when the relevant age threshold was not crossed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:28:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=60519" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (1) TMI 54 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21520</link>
      <description>Specific averments that the partners were responsible for the firm&#039;s business and had participated in filing false returns, fabricating evidence, and deceiving the tax were sufficient to resist quashing under inherent jurisdiction. At the complaint stage, only the allegations and supporting materials could be examined, and the pleaded facts prima facie disclosed the offences alleged. A settlement limited to the concealed income did not imply any bar on prosecution, revised returns filed after search and after assessment did not erase the alleged criminality, and pending appeals against penalty orders did not prevent prosecution. The administrative circular relied on was inapplicable because prosecution had begun when the relevant age threshold was not crossed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21520</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>