<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1998 (6) TMI 66 - PATNA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16442</link>
    <description>Prosecution for alleged violation of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act was found unsustainable where the penalty proceeding arising from the same cash transaction had already been dropped by the competent authority. Because the sanction for prosecution was issued without disclosing that material fact, the sanction was treated as having been granted in ignorance of a relevant circumstance, vitiating the basis for prosecution; the prosecution was therefore quashed as bad in law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:29:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=55442" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (6) TMI 66 - PATNA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16442</link>
      <description>Prosecution for alleged violation of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act was found unsustainable where the penalty proceeding arising from the same cash transaction had already been dropped by the competent authority. Because the sanction for prosecution was issued without disclosing that material fact, the sanction was treated as having been granted in ignorance of a relevant circumstance, vitiating the basis for prosecution; the prosecution was therefore quashed as bad in law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16442</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>