https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392396 Wilful disobedience was not established where the earlier writ direction only required the competent authority to decide the compounding request in accordance with law, and the later rejection was made pursuant to that mandate. The Court also noted that a fresh compounding application had to be assessed under the revised CBDT guidelines effective from 17.06.2019 and Section 279(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with the statutory scope for compounding, the appellate reduction of penalty, delay in prosecution, and personal circumstances all being relevant considerations. The contempt plea was unsustainable, but the compounding request required fresh reconsideration under the prevailing legal framework. en-us Fri, 31 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Aug 2022 10:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392396 Wilful disobedience was not established where the earlier writ direction only required the competent authority to decide the compounding request in accordance with law, and the later rejection was made pursuant to that mandate. The Court also noted that a fresh compounding application had to be assessed under the revised CBDT guidelines effective from 17.06.2019 and Section 279(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with the statutory scope for compounding, the appellate reduction of penalty, delay in prosecution, and personal circumstances all being relevant considerations. The contempt plea was unsustainable, but the compounding request required fresh reconsideration under the prevailing legal framework. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 31 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392396