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 the criminal proceedings under the Income-tax Act could be sustained when sanction for prosecution was granted to the Deputy Director of Income Tax but the complaint was filed by the Assistant Director of Income Tax.
Analysis: The sanction for launching prosecution was specifically accorded in favour of the Deputy Director of Income Tax. The complaint, however, was instituted by the Assistant Director of Income Tax, who was not the authority to whom the sanction was granted. Where a statute prescribes that a power must be exercised by a particular authority and in a particular manner, it cannot be exercised by another authority. The mismatch between the sanctioned authority and the complaining authority created a jurisdictional defect in the prosecution.
Conclusion: The prosecution was invalid for want of authority, and the petition for quashing succeeded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
