Section 204 — the law in short
What the courts have decided on section 204, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
Homi Phiroz Ranina v State of Maharashtra
High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
I am a non-executive director. The complaint under s.276B read with s.278B says only that I was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. Is that enough to put me on trial?
No. The Bombay High Court held that a bare averment reciting the words of s.278B, with no material showing that the director was in fact in charge of the company's affairs and responsible for the conduct of its day to day business, does not disclose a prima facie case, and process should not have issued against such a director. The applicants, who were non-executive directors and two of whom were practising advocates who could not in law act as full-time directors, were discharged.
Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.