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 the Settlement Commission's order passed under the settlement provisions, after the time prescribed by Section 245D(4A)(iii), could be sustained and whether the decision in Star Television News Ltd. applied to an application filed after 01.06.2007.
Analysis: The application before the Settlement Commission was filed after 01.06.2007, so the governing provision was Section 245D(4A)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The earlier Bombay High Court decision dealt with applications filed before 01.06.2007 and the cut-off under the then applicable provisions; it did not govern later applications. On the facts, the Settlement Commission passed its order beyond the statutory period. The Court also held that the grievance based on lack of opportunity could not succeed because the matter had been argued at length and no jurisdictional infirmity was shown in the writ court's approach.
Conclusion: The challenge to the writ court's decision failed. The Settlement Commission order was not saved by the cited precedent, and the writ appeal was dismissed, leaving the assessee's relief intact.
Final Conclusion: The legal effect of the decision is that settlement proceedings initiated after 01.06.2007 remain governed by the later time-limit regime, and a precedent confined to earlier applications cannot be extended to validate an order passed beyond that period.
Ratio Decidendi: A precedent concerning settlement applications filed before 01.06.2007 cannot be applied to applications filed thereafter, and the time-limit prescribed under Section 245D(4A)(iii) must be given effect according to its own statutory regime.