TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
AI-powered research trained on the authentic TaxTMI database.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- 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.
<h1>Review plea on Section 245C(5) interpretation, Settlement Commission abolition and Interim Board scope dismissed for delay</h1> SC dismissed the review petition challenging its earlier interpretation of Section 245C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning abolition of the Income ... Review application against Ceasure of income tax settlement commission - restriction to the filing of the application before the Interim Board for Settlement - by Finance Act, 2021, which was notified on 01.04.2021, the ITSC was abolished and an Interim Board was constituted only to deal with applications pending as of 01.02.2023 - delay of 387 days in filing the Review Petition. As held by SC [2024 (9) TMI 101 - SC ORDER] Section 245C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2021) is read down by removing the retrospective last date of 1st date of February, 2021 as 31st day of March, 2021. Consequently the last date of eligibility mentioned paragraph 4(i) of the impugned circular dated 28.09.2021 shall also be read as 31.03.2021.- All the applications in respect of the petitioners even in respect of the cases arising between 01.02.2021 to 31.03.2021 shall be deemed be pending applications and shall be deemed to be pending applications for the purposes of consideration by the Interim Board. HELD THAT:- Having carefully gone through the Review Petition, the order under challenge and the papers annexed therewith, we are satisfied that there is no error apparent on the face of the record or any merit in the Review Petition, warranting reconsideration of the order impugned. Hence, the Review Petition is dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits. The Supreme Court addressed a Review Petition accompanied by an application seeking oral hearing in open court. The Court first rejected the application for oral hearing. It then noted a 'gross delay of 387 days in filing the Review Petition,' treating this as a significant procedural defect. After examining the Review Petition, the impugned order, and the annexed papers, the Court concluded that there was no 'error apparent on the face of the record' and no substantive merit that would justify reconsideration. Accordingly, the Review Petition was dismissed both on the ground of inordinate delay and on merits. Any pending interlocutory applications were ordered to stand disposed of.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
