{"id":29493,"date":"2022-09-05T18:31:59","date_gmt":"2022-09-05T13:01:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/income-tax-department-v-jenious-clothing-pvt-ltd-2022-445-itr-210-karn-hc\/"},"modified":"2022-10-25T11:02:53","modified_gmt":"2022-10-25T05:32:53","slug":"income-tax-department-v-jenious-clothing-pvt-ltd-2022-445-itr-210-karn-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/income-tax-department-v-jenious-clothing-pvt-ltd-2022-445-itr-210-karn-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Income-Tax Department v. Jenious Clothing Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 445 ITR 210\/ 212 DTR 196\/ 326 CTR 356 (Karn.)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Dismissing the Revision petition of the Revenue\u00a0 the Court held that\u00a0 the trial court came to the conclusion that there were no material to prima facie hold that accused No. 2 was treated as the principal officer of accused No. 1-company, so as to try him along with the company for the offence punishable under section\u00a0276B\u00a0of the\u00a0Income-tax Act, 1961\u00a0and consequently, the application filed under section\u00a0245\u00a0of the\u00a0Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973\u00a0was allowed. The trial court had held that no notice was issued to respondent No. 2 as was mandatory under the Act. The trial court had held that notice issued under section\u00a02(35)\u00a0of the Act which was served on respondent No. 2 could not be considered as notice issued under the section since it was not stated in the notice that respondent No. 2 was in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the company. There was illegality in the order. The discharge of the petitioner from prosecution was justified.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source-Company-Principal Officer-Notice must be served on Principal Officer of  company \u2014Notice held  to be not   valid-Order of Trial Court set aside. [S. 2(35),   Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.S. 245] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29493","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-7FH","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29493","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29493"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29493\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":30430,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29493\/revisions\/30430"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29493"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29493"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29493"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}