1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court Upholds Prosecution under Income-tax Act and Penal Code</h1> The revision petition challenging the prosecution of the petitioners under sections 276B of the Income-tax Act and various sections of the Indian Penal ... Offences And Prosecution, Prosecution Issues:1. Competency of the prosecution against the petitioners under sections 276B of the Income-tax Act and sections 420, 511, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Interpretation of section 279 of the Income-tax Act regarding the prosecution at the instance of the Commissioner.3. Validity of the authority for prosecution under section 279 of the Act.4. Whether the complaint filed by the Income-tax Officer is valid despite the mention of the Union of India.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a revision petition challenging the order of an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate regarding the prosecution of the petitioners under sections 276B of the Income-tax Act and various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners objected to their prosecution on grounds of non-cognizability of the offense and lack of authority under section 279 of the Act. The Magistrate dismissed these objections, leading to the revision petition.The main issue revolves around the interpretation of section 279 of the Income-tax Act, which mandates that a person cannot be prosecuted for certain offenses except at the instance of the Commissioner. The judgment cites precedents to establish that the complaint need not be filed directly by the Commissioner and can be done by an authorized officer. The order passed by the Commissioner authorizing the Income-tax Officer to file the complaint is deemed valid, ensuring compliance with the legal requirement.Furthermore, the judgment emphasizes that the requirement of authority for prosecution does not always necessitate the authority to apply its mind before sanctioning. It is highlighted that evidence can be presented during the trial to validate the authority for prosecution under section 279. The judgment underscores that the substance of the complaint being at the instance of the Commissioner is crucial, regardless of formalities like mentioning the Union of India in the title.Ultimately, the revision petition is dismissed as lacking merit, affirming the validity of the prosecution against the petitioners under the relevant sections of the Income-tax Act and the Indian Penal Code. The judgment clarifies the legal nuances surrounding the authority for prosecution and the interpretation of statutory provisions, providing a comprehensive analysis of the issues raised in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
