Section 132(9A) — the law in short
What the courts have decided on section 132(9A), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
Raj Kumar Kedia v Income Tax Office
High CourtHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
My prosecution sanction under s.279(1) was signed by the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), not the Principal Commissioner. Is the sanction bad, and can I say the complaint is premature because no assessment has been made?
Neither point succeeded. 'Commissioner' in s.279 is read with the definition in s.2(16) and the hierarchy in s.116, so it means and includes the Director and the Principal Director of Income Tax; a sanction by the Principal Director (Investigation) is by a competent authority under a different nomenclature. The complaint is not premature merely because assessment proceedings had not been completed, P. Jayappan being applied.
Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.