TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether immunity from penalty and prosecution under Section 245H of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be granted by the Settlement Commission in the facts of the case. (ii) Whether waiver of interest under Section 234A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified.
Issue (i): Whether immunity from penalty and prosecution under Section 245H of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be granted by the Settlement Commission in the facts of the case.
Analysis: The complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for offences under Section 276CC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had already been instituted before the application under Section 245C was received. The assessee also clarified that no immunity from prosecution had in fact been sought, and the complaint remained pending.
Conclusion: The question of granting immunity from penalty and prosecution under Section 245H did not arise.
Issue (ii): Whether waiver of interest under Section 234A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified.
Analysis: The relevant documents were not supplied by the Department in the first instance and reminders had to be sent. On these facts, no error was found in the Settlement Commission's decision to grant waiver of interest.
Conclusion: The waiver of interest under Section 234A was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The Revenue failed to establish any ground for interference with the Settlement Commission's order, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where immunity from prosecution was not in issue on the facts and no legal error was shown in the grant of interest waiver, the Settlement Commission's order would not be interfered with.
TaxTMI 
