Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The HC held that the penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(b) and prosecution under s. 276CC arise from distinct statutory defaults and the quashing of penalty under s. 271(1)(b) does not extinguish criminal liability under s. 276CC. However, criminal liability under s. 276CC requires proof of wilful default, an essential element of mens rea. The reverse burden under s. 278E shifts the onus to the accused to disprove wilfulness beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the Respondent successfully rebutted the presumption, demonstrating that the failure to file returns in response to the s. 153A notice was not wilful. Consequently, despite the erroneous legal reasoning by the Appellate Court, the acquittal was upheld on the valid ground of absence of wilful default, thereby negating criminal culpability under s. 276CC.
The HC held that the penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(b) and prosecution under s. 276CC arise from distinct statutory defaults and the quashing of penalty under s. 271(1)(b) does not extinguish criminal liability under s. 276CC. However, criminal liability under s. 276CC requires proof of wilful default, an essential element of mens rea. The reverse burden under s. 278E shifts the onus to the accused to disprove wilfulness beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the Respondent successfully rebutted the presumption, demonstrating that the failure to file returns in response to the s. 153A notice was not wilful. Consequently, despite the erroneous legal reasoning by the Appellate Court, the acquittal was upheld on the valid ground of absence of wilful default, thereby negating criminal culpability under s. 276CC.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.