<?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>Appellant acquitted as prosecution fails to prove bribery demand essential u/s 7 for conviction.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=62102</link>
    <description>Bribery - demand of illegal gratification - demand of &amp;#8377; 3,000/- by way of illegal gratification was made by the appellant for passing the assessment order - this is a case where the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant was not proved by the prosecution. Thus, the demand which is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 was not established. - SC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2022 07:12:25 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2022 07:12:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=671076" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appellant acquitted as prosecution fails to prove bribery demand essential u/s 7 for conviction.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=62102</link>
      <description>Bribery - demand of illegal gratification - demand of &amp;#8377; 3,000/- by way of illegal gratification was made by the appellant for passing the assessment order - this is a case where the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant was not proved by the prosecution. Thus, the demand which is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 was not established. - SC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2022 07:12:25 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=62102</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>