https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20374 Section 279 of the Income-tax Act was construed as requiring previous sanction for prosecution, but not prior notice or a hearing to the proposed accused before sanction is granted. The sanctioning authority was also not required to act only on a formal proposal from another income-tax officer and could proceed on the material before it. The sanction was not vitiated merely because later documents were not considered, as that question was left to trial and not quashing. Pending or possible success in penalty reduction or waiver proceedings did not bar prosecution under sections 276C and 277. The prosecution was therefore upheld and the quashing petitions were rejected. en-us Wed, 27 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:42:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20374 Section 279 of the Income-tax Act was construed as requiring previous sanction for prosecution, but not prior notice or a hearing to the proposed accused before sanction is granted. The sanctioning authority was also not required to act only on a formal proposal from another income-tax officer and could proceed on the material before it. The sanction was not vitiated merely because later documents were not considered, as that question was left to trial and not quashing. Pending or possible success in penalty reduction or waiver proceedings did not bar prosecution under sections 276C and 277. The prosecution was therefore upheld and the quashing petitions were rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 27 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20374