TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Special leave petition dismissed; s.245HA applies only when settlement rejected without terms, appellate proceedings to stay</h1> <h3>THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SURAT Versus MD INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.</h3> THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SURAT Versus MD INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. - TMI The Supreme Court condoned a delay of 364 days in filing the petition but ultimately dismissed the petition, referencing a similar earlier dismissal of SLP(C) (D) No.27612 of 2025. The Court emphasized that where an application before the Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 remains undecided, the appellate proceedings must be kept in abeyance until disposal of the settlement application. The Court clarified that 'it is only if the application for settlement is rejected without providing for terms of settlement that Section 245HA of the 1961 Act will be applicable and the appellate proceedings will stand revived.' The Revenue's contention that the assessee must relinquish the right to contest the assessment on merits if the settlement is rejected without terms was rejected as 'misconceived.' The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to condone delay and restore the first appeal was upheld. The Court directed that pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of, and dismissed the present petition accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
