https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7294 Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code was held not to be impliedly repealed by section 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, because the two provisions operated in different fields and were not wholly incompatible; prosecution under both was therefore competent, subject to the rule against double punishment. The repeal of the 1922 Act did not extinguish liability for offences committed while it was in force, since section 297 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with section 6 of the General Clauses Act, preserved pending proceedings and prosecutions. Section 277 of the 1961 Act was also upheld against an article 14 challenge, the classification being treated as reasonable. en-us Wed, 14 Feb 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7294 Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code was held not to be impliedly repealed by section 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, because the two provisions operated in different fields and were not wholly incompatible; prosecution under both was therefore competent, subject to the rule against double punishment. The repeal of the 1922 Act did not extinguish liability for offences committed while it was in force, since section 297 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with section 6 of the General Clauses Act, preserved pending proceedings and prosecutions. Section 277 of the 1961 Act was also upheld against an article 14 challenge, the classification being treated as reasonable. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 14 Feb 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7294