https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396980 In a prosecution for alleged failure to file an income-tax return under Section 276CC of the Income-tax Act, the Madras HC held that the accused's reliance on exemption under Section 54F and claimed reinvestment raised disputed factual defences that could be examined only at trial. The Court reiterated that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to conduct a mini-trial, weigh evidence, or test the truth of the defence version where the complaint discloses the ingredients of the offence. Pre-trial interference was therefore declined, leaving the accused to raise all available defences before the trial court. en-us Thu, 16 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Oct 2020 16:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396980 In a prosecution for alleged failure to file an income-tax return under Section 276CC of the Income-tax Act, the Madras HC held that the accused's reliance on exemption under Section 54F and claimed reinvestment raised disputed factual defences that could be examined only at trial. The Court reiterated that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to conduct a mini-trial, weigh evidence, or test the truth of the defence version where the complaint discloses the ingredients of the offence. Pre-trial interference was therefore declined, leaving the accused to raise all available defences before the trial court. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 16 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396980