1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
HC held that once ITAT, as final fact-finding authority, has deleted penalty u/s 271AAB on merits by holding that there was neither concealment of income nor satisfaction of conditions for penalty, the factual foundation for prosecution u/s 276C(1)(i) disappears. Since both penalty and prosecution were based on identical allegations of concealment and willful attempt to evade tax arising from the same search, the criminal case could not be sustained. Pendency of the revenue's appeal u/s 260A, in absence of any stay on the ITAT order, did not bar exercise of inherent jurisdiction. HC, invoking Section 482 CrPC, quashed the prosecution as abuse of process.