Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
The validity of an order passed by the Interim Board of Settlement was questioned following the abolishment of the Settlement Commission by the Finance Act, 2021. The issue revolved around the eligibility conditions concerning the extended cut-off date for filing an application u/s 245C. A High Court decision highlighted that the CBDT's notification, imposing additional conditions for eligibility, exceeded its powers u/s 119 of the Act. Consequently, the condition in the impugned notification was deemed invalid and unlawful. The Court ruled that the petitioner was indeed eligible to make an application, rendering the rejection of their application by the Interim Board of Settlement as illegal. The petitioner's settlement application should have been considered in accordance with the law.
The validity of an order passed by the Interim Board of Settlement was questioned following the abolishment of the Settlement Commission by the Finance Act, 2021. The issue revolved around the eligibility conditions concerning the extended cut-off date for filing an application u/s 245C. A High Court decision highlighted that the CBDT's notification, imposing additional conditions for eligibility, exceeded its powers u/s 119 of the Act. Consequently, the condition in the impugned notification was deemed invalid and unlawful. The Court ruled that the petitioner was indeed eligible to make an application, rendering the rejection of their application by the Interim Board of Settlement as illegal. The petitioner's settlement application should have been considered in accordance with the law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
