https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757231 The Bombay HC quashed a criminal complaint filed under sections 276B and 278B of the IT Act against a company and its directors for delayed TDS deposit. The court held that TDS was already deposited with interest under section 201(1A), no notice was issued to treat any director as principal officer under section 2(35)(b), and no order was passed deeming any director as assessee in default under sections 201(1) and 201(3). The complaint failed to establish consent, connivance, or negligence as required under section 278B(2). Since revenue chose not to invoke penalty provisions under section 221, prosecuting directors for the same act would constitute abuse of process. en-us Mon, 12 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Aug 2024 11:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757231 The Bombay HC quashed a criminal complaint filed under sections 276B and 278B of the IT Act against a company and its directors for delayed TDS deposit. The court held that TDS was already deposited with interest under section 201(1A), no notice was issued to treat any director as principal officer under section 2(35)(b), and no order was passed deeming any director as assessee in default under sections 201(1) and 201(3). The complaint failed to establish consent, connivance, or negligence as required under section 278B(2). Since revenue chose not to invoke penalty provisions under section 221, prosecuting directors for the same act would constitute abuse of process. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 12 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757231