Questions arising from miscellaneous application orders cannot challenge unaltered Tribunal findings, leaving the original order separately challengea...
Transfer-pricing comparability filters require fresh arm's-length analysis, while delayed receivables need separate reconsideration with working-capit...
Section 153C jurisdiction requires timely deemed search and assessee-specific satisfaction material; otherwise reassessment must use the proper statut...
The High Court acquitted the petitioner of the charge u/s 278 of the Income Tax Act for abetting the filing of false returns. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the foundational facts of abetment by the petitioner of the assessee Munilal Devi. The non-examination of Munilal Devi as a witness was crucial, as her reply in the show cause notice blaming the petitioner could not be tested through cross-examination. The presumption of culpable mental state u/s 278E could not be invoked without proving the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted and discharged.
The High Court acquitted the petitioner of the charge u/s 278 of the Income Tax Act for abetting the filing of false returns. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the foundational facts of abetment by the petitioner of the assessee Munilal Devi. The non-examination of Munilal Devi as a witness was crucial, as her reply in the show cause notice blaming the petitioner could not be tested through cross-examination. The presumption of culpable mental state u/s 278E could not be invoked without proving the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted and discharged.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4886 
