Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter

Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review

The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.

• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required


Step 2 – Draft Generation

Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.

• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

Penalty deletion u/s 271AAB wipes out basis for prosecution u/s 276C(1)(i); proceedings quashed via 482 CrPC

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....HC held that once ITAT, as final fact-finding authority, has deleted penalty u/s 271AAB on merits by holding that there was neither concealment of income nor satisfaction of conditions for penalty, the factual foundation for prosecution u/s 276C(1)(i) disappears. Since both penalty and prosecution were based on identical allegations of concealment and willful attempt to evade tax arising from the same search, the criminal case could not be sustained. Pendency of the revenue's appeal u/s 260A, in absence of any stay on the ITAT order, did not bar exercise of inherent jurisdiction. HC, invoking Section 482 CrPC, quashed the prosecution as abuse of process.....