Just a moment...
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. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether interest under Section 245D(2C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be levied for the period during which the settlement application remained pending before the Settlement Commission, where the admitted tax had been deposited within time and the final tax liability was also satisfied.
Analysis: The admitted tax liability had been paid when the settlement application was filed, and the further amount required after admission was deposited within the stipulated time. The final tax liability determined by the Settlement Commission was also discharged. On these facts, the levy of interest for the pendency period was unwarranted, and the concurrent factual findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal showed no error requiring interference.
Conclusion: Interest under Section 245D(2C) was not leviable in the facts of the case, and the challenge by the Revenue failed.