<?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>Conviction under s.276B upheld for failure to deposit TDS; s.278AA defence rejected, sentence modified after deposit</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93592</link>
    <description>HC upholds conviction of the Respondent for charge under s.276B IT Act for failing to deposit TDS deducted during FY 2012-13, the trial court (ACMM) having found delays of 4-15 months proved by documentary evidence and not disputed. The court rejects the Respondent&#039;s s.278AA defence for reasonable cause, observing the onus to prove financial incapacity was not discharged: no corroborative witnesses or financial records were produced and a bare assertion in the s.313 statement was insufficient. The HC sets aside the ASJ&#039;s contrary order, affirms guilt, but modifies sentence - replacing the fine of Rs.25 lakh with admonition given deposit of tax with interest and ongoing liquidation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2025 09:17:15 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2025 09:17:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=860356" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Conviction under s.276B upheld for failure to deposit TDS; s.278AA defence rejected, sentence modified after deposit</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93592</link>
      <description>HC upholds conviction of the Respondent for charge under s.276B IT Act for failing to deposit TDS deducted during FY 2012-13, the trial court (ACMM) having found delays of 4-15 months proved by documentary evidence and not disputed. The court rejects the Respondent&#039;s s.278AA defence for reasonable cause, observing the onus to prove financial incapacity was not discharged: no corroborative witnesses or financial records were produced and a bare assertion in the s.313 statement was insufficient. The HC sets aside the ASJ&#039;s contrary order, affirms guilt, but modifies sentence - replacing the fine of Rs.25 lakh with admonition given deposit of tax with interest and ongoing liquidation.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2025 09:17:15 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93592</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>