Prosecution

Prosecution — the law in short

Every authority in this library on prosecution, with what each one decided.

• Vijay Krishnaswami v DDIT (Investigation) Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  The Settlement Commission accepted my disclosure. Can the department still prosecute me for evasion?
  No. Every order of settlement is conclusive under s.245-I, so where the Commission has recorded full and true disclosure the factual foundation for a wilful attempt to evade under s.276C(1) is gone and continuing the prosecution is an abuse of process. The prosecution was quashed and costs of Rs. 2,00,000 were imposed on the Revenue.
• Vinubhai Mohanlal Dobaria v CCIT Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  I filed my return late. When is the 276CC offence committed, and is it still a first offence?
  The offence is committed on the day immediately following the s.139(1) due date, not on the day you eventually file. Both defaults here therefore preceded the first show-cause notice, both qualified as a 'first offence' under the 2014 compounding guidelines, and compounding could not be refused on that ground.
• R.P. Darrmalingam v ACIT (SC) Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  My penalty proceedings were dropped and a refund was ordered, but the section 276CC prosecution is still running. Is there Supreme Court authority to have it quashed?
  Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court's refusal to quash and quashed the section 276CC prosecution outright. It did so on three things taken together: the appellant had in fact filed the revised return, notwithstanding that his records had been seized; the penalty proceedings initiated against him had been dropped; and as a consequence a refund had been ordered. Looking at the facts in their totality, the Court held that continuing the criminal proceedings would serve no purpose, and said its conclusion was further supported by Guru Nanak Enterprises v. ITO. A departmental review petition against the order was dismissed in July 2025.
• Union of India v Gautam Khaitan Supreme CourtHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  The department says the Black Money Act applies to my foreign account from July 2015. Is that retrospective?
  No. Notifying 1 July 2015 as the commencement date of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act 2015 did not make the Act retrospective. The date was advanced only so the one-time compliance window in s.59 could operate, and tax under s.3 is still charged only from assessment year 2016-17 onwards.
• Sasi Enterprises v ACIT Supreme CourtHelps department
  The firm never filed its returns and the assessments were made under s.144. Can we get the s.276CC complaint discharged because the assessment was still being fought?
  No. The Supreme Court held that the s.276CC offence is complete on the failure to furnish the return in due time and is unrelated to the pendency of the assessment. The proviso does not help unless the return was furnished before the end of the assessment year or the tax payable on the total income determined on regular assessment, less advance tax and TDS, is within the statutory figure — and by s.278E the court presumes the culpable mental state, leaving it to the accused to displace it beyond reasonable doubt.
• Radheshyam Kejriwal v State of West Bengal Supreme CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The department dropped the penalty proceedings against me after finding the charge not made out. Can it still run the criminal prosecution on exactly the same allegation?
  No, on these facts. The Supreme Court divided. Sathasivam J would have dismissed the appeal, holding that adjudication and prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act are independent and that the adjudicating officer's exoneration is at most a point for the accused to urge before the Magistrate. Chandramauli Kr. Prasad J, with Bedi J, declined to subscribe to that view, so the majority allowed the appeal and the prosecution could not continue. The majority accepted that the two proceedings are independent and can run together, but treated it as a different question once the adjudication has ended in exoneration on the same allegation.
• Madhumilan Syntex Ltd v Union of India Supreme CourtHelps department
  I deposited the TDS late but with interest. Can the company and its directors still be prosecuted?
  Yes. The offence under s.276B is complete once deducted tax is not credited to the Government within the prescribed time; depositing it later with interest is a civil consequence and does not wipe out the default. Directors identified as principal officers under s.2(35) were properly arrayed with the company under s.278B.
• Prakash Nath Khanna v CIT Supreme CourtHelps department
  I missed the due date but I did file the return under s.139(4) before the assessment. Doesn't that mean I filed 'in due time' and cannot be prosecuted under s.276CC?
  No. The only place the Act fixes a time for furnishing the return is s.139(1); s.139(4) merely permits a belated return, and filing one does not wipe out the infraction of having missed the s.139(1) date. Whether the failure was wilful is a question for the trial court, where s.278E requires the court to presume a culpable mental state and leaves it to you to prove its absence.
• K.C. Builders v ACIT Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  The Tribunal cancelled my concealment penalty. Can the 276C prosecution still continue?
  No. Penalty under s.271(1)(c) and prosecution under s.276C rest on the same fact — concealment. Once the Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, holds there was no concealment and cancels the penalty, the substratum of the complaint disappears and quashing follows automatically.
• Prem Dass v ITO Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  The Tribunal cancelled my concealment penalty, but the prosecution under section 276C is still running. Does the penalty finding help me in the criminal court?
  Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. Section 276C needs a wilful attempt to evade, which is a positive act that must be proved, and section 277 needs mens rea - that the person knew or believed the verification to be false, or did not believe it true. Neither can be made out from the presumption in section 132(4A) about seized books. The Court also held that the Tribunal's finding that this was a difference of opinion on estimates, not concealment, and the reduction of the penalty, could not be lost sight of, given the legislative intent in section 279(1A).
• P. Jayappan v ITO Supreme CourtHelps department
  The complaint under s.276C and s.277 was filed while my reassessment is still running. Is it premature?
  No. There is no provision that bars a prosecution until reassessment proceedings are completed. The criminal court judges the case on the evidence before it, and an expectation of success in an appeal or reference does not stand in the way of the complaint being instituted.
• Uttam Chand v ITO Supreme CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The Tribunal has found that my firm was genuine. The department is still prosecuting me for filing false returns on the footing that it was not. Can the Supreme Court stop that?
  Yes. On a finding by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that, on an appraisal of the entire material on record, the disputed person was a partner of the assessee firm and the firm was a genuine firm, the Supreme Court said it did not see how the assessee could be prosecuted for filing false returns, and quashed the prosecution.
• Rajesh Somandas Sachdev v ITO High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I filed my return very late, only after a section 148 notice and after the complaint was filed, but my TDS exceeded my tax and I am owed a refund. Can the prosecution for not filing continue?
  No. The Bombay High Court quashed the complaint. Clause (ii)(b) of the proviso to section 276CC bars prosecution where the tax payable on the total income determined on regular assessment, reduced by advance tax and tax deducted at source, does not exceed the prescribed threshold. Here tax deducted at source was Rs 2,54,788 and the return, accepted by the assessment order of 26 December 2018, showed a refund of Rs 1,64,340 due, which the Department admitted. Following Guru Nanak Enterprises, the Court held the prosecution wholly unwarranted and an abuse of the process of law, and noted that the sanctioning Commissioner had not considered the tax already deducted.
• Sashi Bhusan Prasad Bhuian v State of Jharkhand High CourtHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  My clerk filed the return and I am illiterate. Is that a defence to a 277 prosecution?
  No. Under s.278E the court must presume a culpable mental state and it is for the accused to prove he had none. Pleading illiteracy or blaming an office clerk does not discharge that burden, and a conviction and six-month sentence for a refund claim built on a forged TDS certificate and a non-existent housing loan were upheld.
• B. Mohammad Iqbal v ACIT High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The section 276CC complaint against me was filed by an Assistant Commissioner although my case was with the Income-tax Officer, and no assessment was ever made on the capital gain the complaint alleges. Can that prosecution stand?
  No, on this decision. The Madras High Court quashed the complaint. Only the officer on whom jurisdiction has been conferred by directions or orders is the Assessing Officer; here the show cause notice came from the Income-tax Officer of the ward while the complaint was laid by the Assistant Commissioner, with no transfer under section 127 and no intimation under section 129, so the sanction under section 279 had been given without any application of mind to the question of jurisdiction. Separately, no regular assessment had ever been made, so the tax threshold in the proviso to section 276CC could not be tested and the prosecution was premature.
• Saumya Chaurasia v Union of India High CourtHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  CBDT Circular 24/2019 says prosecution under s.276C(1) is to be launched only after the ITAT confirms the penalty. My appeal is still before the CIT(A). Can the sanction under s.279(1) be quashed on that ground?
  Not where the amount sought to be evaded exceeds Rs.25 lakh. On the Delhi High Court's reading of Circular No.24/2019 dated 09.09.2019 as clarified by Circular No.5/2020 dated 23.01.2020, the requirement of prior administrative approval of a collegium of two CCIT/DGIT rank officers, and the direction that prosecution be launched only after the ITAT confirms the penalty, are addressed to cases at or below the Rs.25 lakh threshold; above it the approval of the sanctioning authority, the Principal Commissioner, suffices and no pre-condition is attached. The challenge to Circular 5/2020 under Article 14 was rejected.
• Dr. Manoj Khanna v ITO High CourtHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  You have now paid the TDS. Does that end the prosecution under s.276B?
  Not by itself. Belated deposit does not extinguish criminal liability unless the statute says so. The s.278E presumption of a culpable mental state attaches to a person in managerial charge and can only be rebutted at trial.
• Nagendra Choudhary v Union of India High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The Tribunal deleted the penalty, but the department has filed an appeal under s.260A and it has been admitted. Can they keep the s.276C prosecution alive until that appeal is decided?
  Not without a stay. The Rajasthan High Court quashed a s.276C(1)(i) prosecution after the Tribunal had deleted the s.271AAB penalty, holding that the mere pendency of the department's s.260A appeal, even one admitted on substantial questions of law, does not resurrect factual findings that have been set aside. The Court expressly preserved the department's liberty to seek revival if the Tribunal's exoneration is reversed.
• Vilas Babanrao Kalokhe v Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Pune High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  I filed my return but could not pay the self-assessment tax with it. I paid it a couple of months later. They have prosecuted me under s.276C(2). Can that stand?
  On these facts, no. The Bombay High Court quashed the complaint and the order issuing process, holding that s.276C(2) punishes a wilful attempt to evade payment of tax and not a mere failure to pay, and that the averments in the complaint fell short of any inference of wilfulness where the assessee had pleaded financial difficulty and had in fact paid the tax with interest.
• 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.
• Anurag Dalmia v Income Tax Office High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The Tribunal has deleted the additions and the penalty has been cancelled. The criminal complaint is still pending on exactly the same allegations. Does it survive?
  No, where the complaint rests on the same material. The Delhi High Court quashed complaints under s.276C(1)(i), s.277(1) and s.276D, holding that once the Tribunal had set aside the additions on merits and the penalty had been cancelled, no offence survived and quashing of the prosecution followed automatically. It also held that the presumption of a guilty mind under s.278E arises only if a prima facie case is disclosed in the complaint.
• PCIT v Prabodh Kumar Tiwari High CourtCuts both waysValidity unconfirmed
  The department says the section 278E presumption means I must face the whole trial. Has any court actually held the presumption rebutted, and on what material?
  Yes. The Delhi High Court dismissed the department's leave petitions and let an acquittal under section 276CC stand, holding that the statutory presumption of a culpable mental state under section 278E had been rebutted. It applied the burden at its strictest - once the presumption is triggered the accused must disprove wilful default, and to the criminal standard - and still found it discharged on the Commissioner's own findings and the surrounding circumstances. But the Court reached that result on its own reasoning, and expressly rejected the appellate court's ground that cancellation of a penalty under section 271(1)(b) vitiates a prosecution under section 276CC.
• ITO v MKY Constructions P Ltd High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  We paid the whole TDS default with interest before the complaint was filed. Can we still be prosecuted under s.276B?
  Not where a reasonable cause for the failure is made out. The Delhi High Court refused the department leave to appeal against an acquittal in three prosecutions under section 276B read with section 278B. Section 278AA carves out an express exception to penal liability under section 276B where the accused establishes a reasonable cause for the failure to deposit. The trial court had found that the company's default was driven by a liquidity crisis caused by legally recoverable payments withheld by contracting parties, that the entire defaulted tax had been deposited with interest under section 201(1A) and late fee under section 234E, and that the default was not deliberate. The High Court held that finding neither perverse nor legally infirm, and declined to disturb it.
• ITO v MKY Constructions Private Limited High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I deducted tax at source but could not deposit it on time because my own contract payments were stuck. I have since paid it with interest. Can I still be prosecuted?
  Not where reasonable cause is proved. The Delhi High Court refused leave to appeal against acquittals under section 276B read with section 278B. Section 278AA opens with a non obstante clause and means that the existence of a reasonable cause operates as a statutory defence to prosecution. The company was a sub-sub-contractor whose large receivables from the main contractor, and refunds from the Department, were stuck, and it deposited the whole of the tax with interest and late fee before the complaints were filed, a fact the Income Tax Officer admitted in cross-examination. That showed the absence of the culpable mental state and the trial court's finding was neither perverse nor legally infirm.
• SKS MC Joint Venture v State of Jharkhand High CourtHelps taxpayerHigh Courts differ
  I deposited the TDS late but with interest, and years later the department filed a criminal complaint under s.276B. Can I get it quashed?
  On these facts, yes. Where the deductor had deposited the tax with the stipulated interest before any complaint was filed, and the department then launched the prosecution long afterwards instead of exercising its power to compound, the Jharkhand High Court held that continuing the criminal proceeding was an abuse of the process of law and quashed the cognizance order.
• L. T. Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v Chief Commissioner of Income Tax High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  My compounding application was thrown out in one line because it was filed more than 36 months after the complaint. Is that the end of it?
  No. The Bombay High Court set the rejection aside because the Chief Commissioner treated the CBDT compounding guidelines as a binding statute and exercised no discretion at all. The Income-tax Act prescribes no limitation for a compounding application, so a rigid time-bar cannot be introduced through guidelines, and the competent authority must consider the facts and circumstances before refusing.
• Income-Tax Department v Vishweshwara Rao Chava High CourtHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  The complaint under s.276B names me as a director and says nothing more than that I was in charge of the company. The trial court discharged me. Can the Department get that set aside?
  Yes, if the complaint carries the specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business, and the s.2(35) notices treating him as principal officer are on the record as exhibits. Whether he really was at the helm is a matter of evidence for the trial, not a ground for discharge, and non-production of the record behind the notices does not make the complaint bad at that stage.
• Rajkumar Agarwal v Income Tax Department High CourtHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  I filed my returns late but only after a notice, and I paid the penalty for the delay. Does the proviso to s.276CC save me, and can I get the prosecution quashed by explaining the delay?
  No on both counts. The proviso to s.276CC refers only to a return under s.139(1); s.142(1)(i) and s.148 are conspicuously absent from it, so the benefit is available only to voluntary filing and not to a return filed after the failure has been detected and a notice issued. Payment of penalty under Chapter XXI does not exonerate the assessee from prosecution under Chapter XXII, and because s.278E requires the court to presume the culpable mental state, the explanation for the delay must be led as evidence before the Magistrate and cannot be accepted at the quashing stage.
• Binod Pattanayak v Union of India High CourtCuts both waysValidity unconfirmed
  My s.276B prosecution for late deposit of TDS is pending and the CBDT has issued fresh compounding guidelines dated 17 October 2024. Will the High Court still quash the complaint under s.482 CrPC?
  On this order, not as a matter of course. The Orissa High Court, having read clauses 4.6 and 8.3 of the CBDT's guidelines of 17 October 2024, took the view that the Department has now harmonised the procedure for compounding offences under the Act arising out of curable defects, and that in the present regime, where compounding of the offence is permissible, the inherent jurisdiction under s.482 CrPC need not necessarily be invoked. The petition was disposed of with liberty to seek compounding, and with a direction that the application be considered on its merits uninfluenced by the Court's observations.
• Nirlon Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  They sanctioned prosecution and filed the complaint while my appeal was still pending before the Tribunal. Is the launch itself bad?
  The Bombay High Court held that it was, and quashed the complaint. The CBDT's own guidelines require a case under s.276C(1) to be processed for prosecution where the s.271(1)(c) penalty exceeding Rs 50,000 has been imposed AND confirmed by the Tribunal, and launching prosecution before that confirmation is contrary to instructions that bind the officers of the Revenue.
• Sree Metaliks Limited v Union of India High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  We deposited the TDS late, with interest, and the Department accepted it — then launched a s.276B prosecution against the company and its directors. Can the complaint be quashed?
  On this judgment, yes, where the delay is explained. The Orissa High Court quashed a s.276B read with s.278B prosecution for delays of between 15 and 394 days in FY 2019-20, holding the delay well explained by the company's insolvency resolution process and the COVID-19 restrictions, and noting that the prosecution had been launched only after the Department had received the TDS along with interest. It followed the Jharkhand High Court in Dev Multicom and its own earlier decision in D.N. Homes.
• Income Tax Officer v Rajendra Prasad Vaish High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The Department has appealed against my acquittal on a s.276CC charge. Given the presumption in s.278E, how much has the Department still to prove?
  It still has to prove the wilfulness. The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the Department's appeal against an acquittal for a 28-month delay in filing a return, holding that even with the presumption in s.278E the complainant must bring home the mens rea, that the accused's explanation together with payment of the tax and penalty rebutted it, and that in an appeal against acquittal, where two views are plausible, the view favouring innocence prevails.
• Anurag Bagaria v Income Tax Department High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  After a search I filed revised returns giving up a capital gains claim and paid the tax. Can I still be prosecuted under s.276C(1) for wilful evasion?
  Not on those facts. The Karnataka High Court quashed the s.276C(1) prosecution, holding that a claim of deduction which the revenue does not accept is not by itself a wilful evasion of tax — an incorrect or erroneous claim can come from a wrong reading of the law. The department's special leave petition against that order was dismissed.
• Manav Menon v Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I never filed my return for the year and the department has launched a prosecution, but my TDS and advance tax more than covered the tax and I am actually due a refund. Can the criminal case go on?
  No. The Madras High Court quashed the prosecution under section 276CC. Clause (ii)(b) of the proviso says a person shall not be proceeded against for failure to furnish the return under section 139(1) if the tax payable on the total income determined on regular assessment, as reduced by advance tax paid and tax deducted at source, does not exceed Rs 3,000. Here the petitioner's advance tax, TDS, TCS and self-assessment tax came to Rs 23,75,066 against total tax and interest of Rs 23,74,610, leaving a refund of Rs 460 claimed. The proviso came to his rescue and the complaint in EOCC No. 168 of 2016 was quashed.
• A.M. Enterprises v State of Jharkhand High CourtHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  I paid the TDS with interest before sanction and no penalty was ever levied. Can they prosecute?
  On this combination of facts, no. The High Court quashed the s.276B/278B prosecution because the tax with interest had been deposited before sanction under s.279(1), no penalty proceedings had ever been initiated, and the delay was explained. If a cancelled penalty destroys the basis of a prosecution, the position is stronger where no penalty was ever adjudicated at all.
• Vishwanath C. Tarali v State of Karnataka High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The Income-tax Officer lodged a police complaint about false returns claiming refunds, the police filed a charge-sheet, and the Magistrate took cognizance of IPC offences. Can that be done without sanction under s.279 and a complaint by an authorised authority?
  No, on this decision. Reading s.279 with s.280B together, an offence under Chapter XXII can be taken cognizance of only on a complaint made by an authority authorised in that behalf under the Act, after the previous sanction of the competent authority. A Magistrate cannot take cognizance on the basis of a final report submitted by the police, and cognizance so taken is without authority of law, so that continuation of the proceeding is an abuse of process.
• Sada Kesava Reddy v Dy CIT High CourtHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  My belated return showed a refund due, so no tax was payable on regular assessment and the proviso to s.276CC protects me. Can I be discharged on that ground before trial?
  Not on this authority. The Telangana High Court held that whether the accused was entitled to a refund, whether there was wilful failure to furnish the return in due time, and whether the notice was validly served are all matters to be decided only after a full trial, and refused to interfere with the dismissal of the discharge application. It also applied the settled position that the benefit of the proviso is available only to a voluntary return under s.139(1) filed before the failure is detected, and not once a notice under s.142(1)(i) or s.148 has been issued.
• Suresh Kumar Agarwal v Union of India High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I filed my post-search return late, paid the tax with interest, no penalty was ever levied and the additions were deleted in appeal. Can the section 276CC prosecution still go on?
  No. The Jharkhand High Court quashed the prosecution as an abuse of the process of law. Three things weighed with the Court: the department had accepted the return with interest, and where the officer levies interest it must be presumed that he extended the time for filing, which excludes wilful default; no penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(a) had been initiated at all, though the provision was available; and the first appellate authority had by order dated 3 July 2019 set aside the whole of the protective assessment. Applying Gopal Ji Shaw, Gujarat Travancore Agency, Autofil, G.L. Didwania and K.C. Builders, the Court held mens rea could not be made out and quashed the complaint and the cognizance order.
• Vipul Aggarwal v ITO High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The sanction for prosecution names the company as the assessee. Can the complaint proceed against me as its director?
  No. The Delhi High Court quashed the complaint against the director because the sanction placed on record identified only the company; there was no sanction against him, whether as a person, as a director, or as someone responsible for the conduct of the company's business. Without that sanction the department cannot proceed against him for the s.276CC offence.
• S.P. Velayutham v ACIT High CourtHelps taxpayerHigh Courts differ
  I admitted the tax in my return but could not pay it. Can that be prosecuted as a wilful attempt to evade payment under s.276C(2)?
  No, not on default alone. The Madras High Court held that a prosecution under s.276C(2) for wilfully attempting to evade payment of tax cannot be launched against an assessee who has merely defaulted in paying tax on time; without mens rea there is no wilful attempt.
• Forzza Projects Private Limited v Principal Commissioner of Income Tax High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  I filed my return but could not pay the self-assessment tax on time; I paid it later with interest in instalments. The Department has launched a prosecution under s.276C(2) and says s.278E presumes a culpable mental state. Is that right?
  On the Kerala High Court's view, no. A mere failure to pay the tax due, later paid with interest, is not a wilful attempt to evade the payment of tax within s.276C(2) where there is no concealment of a source of income, no false particulars and no circumstance created to enable evasion. And s.278E does not fill the gap: the presumption of a culpable mental state is a rule of evidence that comes into play only once the basic ingredients constituting the offence are disclosed, not to supply them.
• Karti P. Chidambaram v Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) High CourtHelps taxpayerUnder appeal
  The Deputy Director (Investigation) has filed a complaint under s.276C(1) and s.277 based on material seized from third parties, with no assessment or reassessment order against me. Can that prosecution stand?
  On this judgment, no. Although the Deputy Director can launch a prosecution under s.279 and although P. Jayappan holds that a prosecution need not await the assessment, the Madras High Court held that this is so where the complaint rests on the assessee's own statements under s.132(4) and incriminating material seized from him; where the material is collected from third parties and the prosecution itself treats it as merely corroborative, the Department must wait for the Assessing Officer's finding, and a complaint launched in the meantime is premature. The revisions were allowed and the prosecution held not maintainable, with liberty to the Department to act after a finding under s.153.
• Indo Arya Central Transport Ltd v CIT (TDS) High CourtHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  The Commissioner has sanctioned my prosecution under s.276B without dealing with my explanation that a cash crunch and the department's own withheld refunds caused the delay. Can I have the sanction quashed in a writ petition?
  Not on these facts. The Delhi High Court held that a financial crunch, pending refunds and a delay of less than twelve months are ex facie factual matters which may constitute the defence of reasonable cause under s.278AA, but that the onus of proving reasonable cause lies on the person being prosecuted and the place to discharge it is the criminal trial, not a writ petition. A sanction under s.279(1) is open to judicial review only in a limited way, to see that the authority acted fairly and reasonably, and the court will not sit as an appellate forum over it.
• Homi Phiroz Ranina v State of Maharashtra High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  I am a non-executive director. The complaint under s.276B read with s.278B says only that I was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. Is that enough to put me on trial?
  No. The Bombay High Court held that a bare averment reciting the words of s.278B, with no material showing that the director was in fact in charge of the company's affairs and responsible for the conduct of its day to day business, does not disclose a prima facie case, and process should not have issued against such a director. The applicants, who were non-executive directors and two of whom were practising advocates who could not in law act as full-time directors, were discharged.
• Manian Transports v S. Krishna Moorthy, Income-Tax Officer High CourtCuts both waysValidity unconfirmed
  I filed revised returns voluntarily after the officer raised a query, they were accepted, and the reassessments were completed on that basis. Does that end the s.277 prosecution for the original returns?
  Not at the quashing stage. The Madras High Court held that the argument that the revised returns were filed after a discussion with the Income-tax Officer and were accepted, so no prosecution would arise, 'has to be necessarily negatived at this stage, for it will relate to the realm of appreciation of evidence to be brought on record'. It also held that s.277 is independent and not interlinked with s.276C, so the s.277 prosecution of the person who made the verification survives even where the s.276C charge falls away.
• Jai Singh Goel v CCIT High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The Commissioner has refused to compound my s.276CC offence. Can I take that refusal to the High Court?
  Yes. The Delhi High Court set aside a rejection of a compounding application for offences under s.276CC read with s.278E. The two reasons given for the refusal — that the application was out of time, and that the applicant stood convicted — had both fallen away, the first because the Board had relaxed the time limit and the second because the conviction had been set aside on appeal. The Court sent the application back to be considered on its merits.
• CBDT instruction of 18 August 2025 on Black Money Act prosecutions CBDT Circulars & InstructionsHelps taxpayer
  The foreign asset is small and no penalty is proposed. Can they still prosecute me for leaving it out of Schedule FA?
  Not on the Board's own instruction. It directs that prosecution under s.49 or s.50 of the Black Money Act is not to be initiated in cases where penalty under s.42 or s.43 is not imposed or not imposable because the asset falls within the proviso to those sections - assets other than immovable property whose aggregate value does not exceed Rs 20 lakh. It amends an earlier instruction of 15 March 2022.
• CBDT Compounding Guidelines 2024 CBDT Circulars & InstructionsHelps taxpayer
  I want to compound my income tax offence. What do the current guidelines let me do?
  Considerably more than the old ones. The guidelines of 17 October 2024 abolish the Category A/B classification, remove the cap on the number of applications and the 36-month outer time limit, extend compounding to ss.275A and 276B, allow a co-accused to apply for a company or HUF, and set TDS compounding charges at a single 1.5% per month with no interest on delayed payment of the charge.
• Statutory position — s.278AB immunity from prosecution where a settlement application has abated CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysValidity unconfirmed
  My application to the Settlement Commission abated. Is there any route to immunity from prosecution left, and how long do I have?
  Section 278AB is that route. On the words of the section, a person may make an application to the Commissioner for granting immunity from prosecution if he has made an application for settlement under s.245C and the proceedings for settlement have abated under s.245HA — but the application cannot be made after institution of the prosecution proceedings after abatement.

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.