https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27330 The court quashed the complaint filed under s. 276C of the I.T. Act against partners of a firm accused of tax evasion. It held that only the partner directly involved in filing the return could be held criminally liable under s. 278B of the I.T. Act, while other partners not actively conducting the business were not accountable. The judgment clarified the allocation of criminal liability among partners in a firm, emphasizing that only those directly responsible for the offense could be prosecuted. en-us Fri, 18 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:51:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27330 The court quashed the complaint filed under s. 276C of the I.T. Act against partners of a firm accused of tax evasion. It held that only the partner directly involved in filing the return could be held criminally liable under s. 278B of the I.T. Act, while other partners not actively conducting the business were not accountable. The judgment clarified the allocation of criminal liability among partners in a firm, emphasizing that only those directly responsible for the offense could be prosecuted. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 18 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27330