<?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>1987 (7) TMI 88 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25598</link>
    <description>A chartered accountant cannot be subjected to criminal liability for allegedly false income-tax returns on the basis of a complaint that only states he prepared the accounts and typed them on his letterhead. In the absence of a specific averment that incriminating seized documents were before him, the complaint did not disclose material to infer conspiracy, common intention, or abetment. Mere preparation of returns from client-supplied material, without allegations of knowing participation in falsity, was insufficient. The Madras HC therefore held that the prosecution against him could not be sustained and that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process, warranting quashing insofar as he was concerned.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:22:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=64596" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (7) TMI 88 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25598</link>
      <description>A chartered accountant cannot be subjected to criminal liability for allegedly false income-tax returns on the basis of a complaint that only states he prepared the accounts and typed them on his letterhead. In the absence of a specific averment that incriminating seized documents were before him, the complaint did not disclose material to infer conspiracy, common intention, or abetment. Mere preparation of returns from client-supplied material, without allegations of knowing participation in falsity, was insufficient. The Madras HC therefore held that the prosecution against him could not be sustained and that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process, warranting quashing insofar as he was concerned.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25598</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>