https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447505 The Madras HC upheld a Single Judge's order directing authorities to re-examine a compounding application under Section 279(2) for alleged offences under Sections 276C and 277. The court found the respondent entitled to compound under Section 279(1A) following penalty reduction from 300% to 100% by appellate authority. Applying the SC precedent in Prem Dass case, the court rejected literal construction of Section 279(1A) and held that penalty reduction by appellate authority qualifies for compounding benefits. Revenue's failure to challenge the initial order proved fatal to their contrary contentions. en-us Mon, 11 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 May 2026 10:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447505 The Madras HC upheld a Single Judge's order directing authorities to re-examine a compounding application under Section 279(2) for alleged offences under Sections 276C and 277. The court found the respondent entitled to compound under Section 279(1A) following penalty reduction from 300% to 100% by appellate authority. Applying the SC precedent in Prem Dass case, the court rejected literal construction of Section 279(1A) and held that penalty reduction by appellate authority qualifies for compounding benefits. Revenue's failure to challenge the initial order proved fatal to their contrary contentions. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 11 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447505