https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456963 CBDT Circular No. 24 of 2019 was held not to apply retrospectively to a prosecution complaint already filed under section 276-CC of the Income-tax Act, because the circular operated from its issuance and covered only pending cases where complaint had not yet been instituted. A belated return filed under section 139(4) did not cure the statutory default of failing to furnish the return in due time under section 139(1) or the notice period under section 139(2), and payment of tax and interest did not by itself justify quashing. The presumption of culpable mental state under section 278-E was treated as a matter for trial, so the complaint and summoning order were not quashed. en-us Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Aug 2024 10:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456963 CBDT Circular No. 24 of 2019 was held not to apply retrospectively to a prosecution complaint already filed under section 276-CC of the Income-tax Act, because the circular operated from its issuance and covered only pending cases where complaint had not yet been instituted. A belated return filed under section 139(4) did not cure the statutory default of failing to furnish the return in due time under section 139(1) or the notice period under section 139(2), and payment of tax and interest did not by itself justify quashing. The presumption of culpable mental state under section 278-E was treated as a matter for trial, so the complaint and summoning order were not quashed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456963