TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
AI-powered research trained on the authentic TaxTMI database.
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>Tax prosecution u/ss 276C(1) and 278B settled; question on officer's competence and HC precedent left open</h1> SC recorded that the dispute between the Revenue and the assessee in the prosecution for alleged offences under s. 276C(1) and s. 278B of the Income Tax ... Proper authority / Jurisdiction to launch Prosecution Proceedings - Prosecution launched by the Assistant Director of Income Tax - Offences punishable u/s 276C(1) and 278B - complaint u/s 190 R/w. Section 200 of Cr.P.C. 2nd respondent in terms of Rule 7 read with sub-Section (2) of Section 92 read with Section 93 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024 and informs the Court that towards full and final settlement of the subject matter of prosecution, the issue has been resolved between the Revenue and the Assessee. HELD THAT:- We take note of it and also appreciate the concern of the Revenue. Having regard to the settlement arrived at between the Revenue and the Assessee and to keep the issue open, we observe that the findings on the competence of the Deputy Director/Assistant Director to initiate prosecution has been left open to be considered in an appropriate case in accordance with law. The impugned judgment shall not be treated as a precedent for any purpose. The Supreme Court dealt with a Special Leave Petition arising from a prosecution dispute between the Revenue and the Assessee. The second respondent, by I.A. No. 223230 of 2025, produced orders dated 14.02.2025 and 11.03.2025 issued under Rule 7 read with Section 92(2) and Section 93 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, confirming that 'towards full and final settlement of the subject matter of prosecution, the issue has been resolved between the Revenue and the Assessee.' Counsel for the petitioner accepted the passing of these orders but requested that the Court expressly neutralize the binding effect of the findings in the impugned judgment, particularly on the 'competence of the Deputy Director/Assistant Director to initiate prosecution.' The Court, noting the settlement and 'to keep the issue open,' held that all findings on such competence are left open for determination 'in an appropriate case in accordance with law.' It further directed that 'the impugned judgment shall not be treated as a precedent for any purpose' and disposed of the Special Leave Petition and pending applications.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
