TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- 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.
Issues: Whether, after an application under section 245C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been allowed to be proceeded with under section 245D, the Settlement Commission acquired exclusive jurisdiction under section 245F so as to bar the Commissioner from authorising or initiating criminal prosecution under section 279 in relation to matters pending before the Commission.
Analysis: Once the settlement application was admitted to proceed, the same subject-matter, including the alleged false return and false verification, fell within the pending proceedings before the Settlement Commission. Section 245F conferred on the Commission all the powers of an income-tax authority and, until an order under section 245D(4) was passed, exclusive jurisdiction in relation to the case. The Court held that permitting the Commissioner to initiate prosecution on the very matter under consideration would defeat that exclusive jurisdiction and render section 245F(2) ineffective. The Commission alone was therefore competent to decide whether prosecution should be launched or immunity considered under the settlement scheme.
Conclusion: The complaint and the criminal proceedings were not maintainable during the pendency of the settlement proceedings and were quashed, in favour of the petitioners.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
