<?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>2025 (6) TMI 1225 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773112</link>
    <description>Wilful non-payment of assessed income tax can sustain conviction under Section 276C(2) where surrounding materials show deliberate default. The Delhi High Court examined the assessed liability, departmental notices, the assessee&#039;s audit and balance-sheet records, and the defence that funds were held by a co-brother and related concerns. It found no credible recoverable debt or supporting recovery steps, and held that replies to notices under Section 226(3) undermined the claim that the money was held for the assessee. Mere assertion of financial hardship, without evidence, was insufficient to displace the inference of deliberate non-payment. The conviction was therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2025 09:04:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=829783" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 1225 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773112</link>
      <description>Wilful non-payment of assessed income tax can sustain conviction under Section 276C(2) where surrounding materials show deliberate default. The Delhi High Court examined the assessed liability, departmental notices, the assessee&#039;s audit and balance-sheet records, and the defence that funds were held by a co-brother and related concerns. It found no credible recoverable debt or supporting recovery steps, and held that replies to notices under Section 226(3) undermined the claim that the money was held for the assessee. Mere assertion of financial hardship, without evidence, was insufficient to displace the inference of deliberate non-payment. The conviction was therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773112</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>