Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.28 seconds)Section 277 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M.R. Pratap vs V.M. Muthukrishnan, Income-Tax ... on 4 February, 1977
7. Mr. N. C. Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioner (2nd accused), contends that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has failed to take note of the pronouncement of this court in the earlier petition, Cr. M.P. No. 25 of 1976, that a managing director or director of a company can be held to be a principal officer of the company only if the ITO has served a notice of his intention to treat the managing director or director as principal officer of the company. In this case, according to the counsel, it is not only the contention of the petitioner, but the admitted stand of the complaint also that the ITO has not issued any notice to the petitioner informing him of his intention to treat the petitioner as the principal officer of the company. His further argument is that the decision in M. R. Pratap v. V. M. Muthukrishnan [1977] 47 Comp Cas 815 (Mad), will have no application to the facts of this case, because s. 276B and s. 277 of the Act stand on different footings. Arguing contra, the learned counsel for the Income-tax Department states that the petitioner will undoubtedly constitute the principal officer of the company in view of his position as managing director and, therefore, he can also be proceeded with under s. 276B for delayed payment of the tax collection.
Section 192 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 200 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80E in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 204 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1