https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259715 The court declined to quash a show-cause notice regarding delayed tax deposit, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to respond to factual aspects. It clarified the discretionary nature of prosecution under sections 276B and 279(1)(2) of the Income Tax Act, noting that prosecution is not mandatory for every default. The judgment highlighted the authorities' power to compound offences before or after proceedings and stressed that decisions on prosecution rest with them. The petitioner was granted time to act accordingly, and if the decision is adverse, implementation is stayed for six weeks, emphasizing fairness in the process. en-us Tue, 12 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 May 2015 22:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259715 The court declined to quash a show-cause notice regarding delayed tax deposit, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to respond to factual aspects. It clarified the discretionary nature of prosecution under sections 276B and 279(1)(2) of the Income Tax Act, noting that prosecution is not mandatory for every default. The judgment highlighted the authorities' power to compound offences before or after proceedings and stressed that decisions on prosecution rest with them. The petitioner was granted time to act accordingly, and if the decision is adverse, implementation is stayed for six weeks, emphasizing fairness in the process. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 12 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259715