TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Dismisses Petitions, Allows Petitioner to Challenge Deputy Director's Authority in Trial Court.</h1> <h3>M/s. S.S. HYDERABAD BIRIYANI PVT. LTD & ANR. Versus THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION)</h3> The SC dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, finding no grounds for interference under Art. 136 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner retains the ... Proceedings pending on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the offence punishable u/s 277 - under-reporting the sales and expenses - accused approached before Settlement Commission who had granted immunity from prosecution under the Income Tax Act and as per Section 245I the order passed by the Settlement Commission shall be conclusive. As decided by HC [2023 (11) TMI 1234 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] admittedly, the petitioners filed an application before the Settlement Commission as per Section 245C of the Income Tax Act, on 22.01.2018. Whereas, the prosecution was initiated two years before viz., 17.11.2016 itself. Therefore, the provisions u/s 245I of the Income Tax Act is not applicable and petitioners concealed the fact of such pending prosecution for the offence u/s 277and obtained immunity in respect of prosecution as the same was not brought to the knowledge of the Settlement Commission - this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings pending on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II) Egmore, Chennai. HELD THAT:- No ground for interference is made out in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed. The petitioner has challenged the very authority of the Deputy Director (Investigation) to initiate the proceedings in this case. The petitioner would be at liberty to raise this point before the Trial Court. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions as no ground for interference was found under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner can challenge the authority of the Deputy Director (Investigation) before the Trial Court. Pending applications were disposed of.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
