2015 (10) TMI 2311 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Sri Kunnasagaran Chinniah, S/o. Sri Riaki Chinniah Versus The Income-Tax Department By Income Tax Officer (TDS) , Office Of The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)
Offences punishable under Section 276B r/w. Section 278B - failure to remit TDS in respect of various payments made by the Company - Held that - There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner herein is a non-Executive Director of the Company. In the entire complaint there is no averment to the effect as to how this petitioner was involved directly or indirectly in the commission of the offences. - It is the established position of law that there is no concept of vicarious liability under criminal jurisprudence, unless the statute specifically prescribed for the same. Though Section 278B o ....... - .......
2015 (5) TMI 589 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M/s Kudos Chemie Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) , Chandigarh
Prosecution proceedings under section 276B - tax deducted by the petitioner of an amount of ₹ 1.04 crores had been deposited by it into the Central Government Account after the due date prescribed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Held that - Sub section (1) of Section 279 provides that a person shall not be proceeded against for an offence under section 276B except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner or Commissioner (Appeals) or the appropriate authority . Thus, if there is no sanction from the Commissioner or Commissioner (Appeals) or the appropriate authority, a person canno ....... - .......
2014 (9) TMI 794 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Income Tax Officer Versus Anil Batra & Another
Offense u/s 276B - principal officer - show cause notices addressed to The Principal Officer regarding failure to pay the tax deducted at source - Liability of the Director of a company u/s 276-B r.w Section 194A and 200 Principle officer - Held that - Section 278 B of IT Act makes the directors of the company in charge of its affairs liable for the offence committed by it unless the presumption is able to be rebutted by such director - when in the show cause notice it was stated that the directors were to be considered as Principal Officers under the Act, and a complaint was filed, such compl ....... - .......
2014 (9) TMI 583 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
SC. Kumar Versus Income Tax Officer And Others
Failure to deduct TDS Offence u/s 194A Complaint u/s 482 Cr.P.C read with section 276B of IT Act petitioner argued that the complaint was filed under Section 276-B, which provision has been amended after 01.04.1989 and only failure to pay tax deducted at source has been made offence. - Held that - Petitioner S.C. Kumar was appointed as a nominee Director in M/s Sukhna Paper Mills Limited by the Industrial Finance Corporation of India - There is also nothing in the complaint to show that the present petitioner was responsible for managing day-to-day affairs of that company - a person appointed ....... - .......
2013 (11) TMI 619 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX &INCOME TAX OFFICER Versus M/s HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD
TDS deduction u/s 194B - Prize money given in kind Assessee in default u/s 201 - Held that - it is clear that provisions of Section 194B does not provide for deduction of tax at source where the winnings are wholly in kind and it simply puts a responsibility to ensure payment of tax, where winnings is wholly in kind. In the present case, admittedly, the winnings was wholly in kind. - Decided in favor of assessee. - Proceedings u/s 201 - Held that - the conjoint reading of Section 201 and Section 194B would show that the person responsible to deduct tax at source, if he either fails to deduct o ....... - .......
2012 (9) TMI 158 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Serco BPO (P.) Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, TDS Circle, Gurgaon
Non issuance of Tax Deduction Certificate (TDC) u/s 197 - assessee is subsidiary of Serco BPO Holdings Private Limited - Held that - The power vested in the Assessing Officer for non issuance of TDC is to be exercised in a judicious manner & is required to furnish reasons while deciding the application filed by the assessee. The perusal of the application filed by the assessee clearly demonstrates that the AO had rejected the application as the assessee had violated the provisions of TDS and proceedings under Sections 276B and 271C of the Act were pending, but none of these grounds validly ....... - .......
2013 (10) TMI 1027 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
P. Jayanandan, Income-tax Officer Versus Sri Ramakrishna Steel Industries Ltd.
Offence under sections 276B read with section 278B - failure to remit income-tax deducted at source - Condonation of delay application - Delay in filing the complaint Held that - Complainant had listed 22 documents along with the complaint. Those documents were on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. Therefore, the complainant could not produce the same before the trial court within a reasonable time. Therefore, the delay had not been caused by the complainant since the documents were in judicial custody in some other case. Besides this, the documents are not created ones. Th ....... - .......
2011 (7) TMI 332 - Delhi High Court
Anil Batra Versus Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
Compounding of offence - revised guidelines - Prohibition - Held that - the condition that offences could be compounded only before the filing of the complaint remained unaltered in the revised guidelines of 29.07.2003. - The amendment specifically stipulates that all the conditions prescribed are required to be satisfied for compounding of a technical offence. - Three complaints have already been filed against the petitioner and in two of those, the petitioner stands convicted by the competent court. The revisions for enhancement of punishment have been filed by the Department and th ....... - .......
2010 (11) TMI 17 - DELHI HIGH COURT
ITO Versus Delhi Iron Works (P) Ltd.
Failure to deduct TDS - principal officer - scope and liability of principal officer - punishment u/s 276B - person responsible for paying u/s 204 - Held that - the director is not included within the ambit of Sub-clause (a) of Section 2(35) of the Act. In case the Income Tax Officer seeks to prosecute the director along with the company for an offence punishable under Section 276-B of the Act, then he has to i ....... - .......
2008 (9) TMI 5 - HIGH COURT DELHI
KC. PALANISWAMY and ANR. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER
TDS collected but not deposited prosecution - demand raised by treating the Company as the assessee in default Company plea is that prosecution proceeding can be initiated only against those persons who were managing the affairs of company during the default plea of petitioner is accepted offence of a failure to deduct or remit the TDS is a one-time offence an ....... - .......
2008 (3) TMI 300 - PATNA HIGH COURT
OM PRAKASH KATYAL AND OTHERS Versus UNION OF INDIA
Tax collected at source not deposited to credit of Central Govt. within due date Directors cannot be responsible for the default in deposit of the TDS amount prosecution was to be quashed against the petitioners (directors)
2007 (8) TMI 200 - HIGH COURT, BOMBAY
A SHENOY AND CO. AND OTHERS Versus ND KADAM, ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND OTHERS
Offences and prosecution - Revenue alleged that assessee-firm committed an offences by not deducting tax at source while interest payment to creditors and liable for prosecution u/s 276B but assessee contended that after change of law fa ....... - .......
2007 (7) TMI 7 - HIGH COURT , BOMBAY
Yashpal Sahni Versus 1. Rekha Hajarnavis, 2. KC Meena, 3. Tarkeshwar Singh, 4. KM Verma, 5. The Union of India, 6. Lan Eseda Industries Ltd.
Where the employer deduct TDS from the salary of employee, whether the revenue can recover the said amount of TDS with interest from the concerned employee? It was held that revenue can not collect TDS from the employee directly. Bar contained in section 205 applicable.
2007 (3) TMI 205 - SUPREME Court
Madhumilan Syntax Limited And Others Versus Union of India And Another
Failure to credit TDS to the Central Government as required by section 276B - The appellants had thus committed an offence punishable under section 278B - We may not be understood to have expressed any opinion one way or the other on the merits and as and when the matter will come up for trial, it will be decided strictly on its ow ....... - .......
2006 (12) TMI 78 - HIGH COURT, BOMBAY
UNION OF INDIA Versus GUPTA BUILDERS P. LTD. AND OTHERS
Offence and prosecution - Assessee fail to make the payment of tax deducted at source to the credit of CG within the prescribed time - HC held that nature of offence was continuing and for such no notice necessary and no time limit for launching prosecution