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 Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The HC held that the offence in question is compoundable and the pendency of a criminal prosecution does not preclude the filing of a compounding application nor impose a limitation period based on the contested guidelines. The Court invalidated Clause 7(ii) of the relevant guideline as ultra vires the statute, relying on its prior ruling in Jayashree v. CBDT. Consequently, the HC set aside the 2nd respondent's rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The 2nd respondent is directed to admit the compounding application submitted on 15.09.2023 and decide it on merits in accordance with law, without regard to the limitation period prescribed in the struck-down clause.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
