https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440821 The dominant issue was whether a compounding application under s.279(2) of the Income-tax Act could be rejected solely for delay in filing, and whether a subsequent compounding application was barred after an earlier rejection. Relying on its earlier DB ruling that rejection of a first application for default does not preclude a later application, the HC held there is no statutory restriction on the number of compounding applications and that delay alone is not a valid ground for rejection, so long as the criminal complaint remains pending as required by s.279(2). The HC directed the authority to decide the application within eight weeks after granting a prior personal hearing and issuing a reasoned order. en-us Tue, 18 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Dec 2025 16:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440821 The dominant issue was whether a compounding application under s.279(2) of the Income-tax Act could be rejected solely for delay in filing, and whether a subsequent compounding application was barred after an earlier rejection. Relying on its earlier DB ruling that rejection of a first application for default does not preclude a later application, the HC held there is no statutory restriction on the number of compounding applications and that delay alone is not a valid ground for rejection, so long as the criminal complaint remains pending as required by s.279(2). The HC directed the authority to decide the application within eight weeks after granting a prior personal hearing and issuing a reasoned order. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 18 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440821