<?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>Vicarious liability of directors under tax offence provisions: discharge set aside where common finding on day-to-day control failed.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100127</link>
    <description>Vicarious criminal liability of directors under s. 276B requires material showing involvement in the company&#039;s day-to-day affairs. The Trial Court had discharged accused No. 6 on a common finding that there was no evidence of such involvement for accused Nos. 2 to 6, but that basis had already been set aside in earlier revision proceedings as to accused No. 2. The High Court held that the same common reasoning could not continue to sustain the discharge of accused No. 6, and set aside the discharge order. Liberty was reserved to the accused to establish before the Trial Court that no material exists showing participation in day-to-day management.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2026 08:24:42 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 May 2026 08:24:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=903765" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Vicarious liability of directors under tax offence provisions: discharge set aside where common finding on day-to-day control failed.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100127</link>
      <description>Vicarious criminal liability of directors under s. 276B requires material showing involvement in the company&#039;s day-to-day affairs. The Trial Court had discharged accused No. 6 on a common finding that there was no evidence of such involvement for accused Nos. 2 to 6, but that basis had already been set aside in earlier revision proceedings as to accused No. 2. The High Court held that the same common reasoning could not continue to sustain the discharge of accused No. 6, and set aside the discharge order. Liberty was reserved to the accused to establish before the Trial Court that no material exists showing participation in day-to-day management.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2026 08:24:42 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100127</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>