Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Circulars
of of All Circulars
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Jurisdictional Issue in Tax Prosecution: Authorization Required u/ss 276(b), 276(d), 276B of Income Tax Act, 1961.</h1> A recent jurisdictional issue arose regarding prosecution authorization under sections 276(b), 276(d), and 276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case involved a firm operating in Bombay but assessed in Delhi. The key factor is determining who has jurisdiction over the person responsible for tax deduction and payment, as defined in section 204. For a company, this includes the company and its principal officer, while for a firm, it includes the firm and its partners. Commissioners with jurisdiction over the responsible party must authorize prosecution, and separate authorizations are required if jurisdictions differ. This guidance should be followed for prosecution proposals under these sections.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
