https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39128 Revision against an interlocutory order was held barred by section 397(2) CrPC, though the court examined other jurisdictional objections. Section 279(1A) did not bar prosecution under section 277 of the Income-tax Act because the penalty reduction was ordered by the Appellate Tribunal, not by the Commissioner under section 271(4A). The limitation bar under section 468 CrPC also did not apply because the Economic Offence (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1974 excluded Chapter XXXVI for Income-tax Act offences and connected IPC offences triable with them. The complaint was competent since the Income-tax Officer was not a court for section 195(1)(b)(i) purposes and the complaint was filed at the Commissioner's instance. en-us Tue, 08 Jul 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:06:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39128 Revision against an interlocutory order was held barred by section 397(2) CrPC, though the court examined other jurisdictional objections. Section 279(1A) did not bar prosecution under section 277 of the Income-tax Act because the penalty reduction was ordered by the Appellate Tribunal, not by the Commissioner under section 271(4A). The limitation bar under section 468 CrPC also did not apply because the Economic Offence (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1974 excluded Chapter XXXVI for Income-tax Act offences and connected IPC offences triable with them. The complaint was competent since the Income-tax Officer was not a court for section 195(1)(b)(i) purposes and the complaint was filed at the Commissioner's instance. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 08 Jul 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39128