Revenue neutrality in domestic related-party loans can require deletion of interest transfer pricing adjustments after domestic-transaction verificati...
The HC held that the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to implead Applicants 2 to 4 as accused alongside accused No. 1-firm was without jurisdiction due to the absence of prior sanction mandated by Section 279 of the Income Tax Act. The court emphasized that mandatory sanction is a prerequisite even under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The evidence did not establish that Applicants 2 to 4 were responsible for the firm's conduct or that the offence was committed with their consent, connivance, or negligence as required under Section 278B of the Income Tax Act. Furthermore, the knowledge of their partnership was not newly discovered evidence. Consequently, the Sessions Judge erred in allowing the application, and the revision petition was allowed, quashing and setting aside the order impleading Applicants 2 to 4 as accused.
The HC held that the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to implead Applicants 2 to 4 as accused alongside accused No. 1-firm was without jurisdiction due to the absence of prior sanction mandated by Section 279 of the Income Tax Act. The court emphasized that mandatory sanction is a prerequisite even under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The evidence did not establish that Applicants 2 to 4 were responsible for the firm's conduct or that the offence was committed with their consent, connivance, or negligence as required under Section 278B of the Income Tax Act. Furthermore, the knowledge of their partnership was not newly discovered evidence. Consequently, the Sessions Judge erred in allowing the application, and the revision petition was allowed, quashing and setting aside the order impleading Applicants 2 to 4 as accused.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
