Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
The High Court held that the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) rightly restricted the applicability of interest u/s 234B on the total income disclosed in the Statement of Facts (SOF) up to the date of admission of the application u/s 245D(1). For considering the application, the ITSC must be satisfied that the applicant made a full and true disclosure regarding income and the settlement amount. After admission, the ITSC can call for reports, records, and undertake further inquiry under sub-sections (3) and (4), wherein the final amount payable could hypothetically be more than disclosed in the SOF. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Brij Lal, the interest liability u/s 234B cannot extend beyond the date of admission u/s 245D(1). Therefore, the ITSC correctly limited the interest liability to the date of admission, and the High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging this.
The High Court held that the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) rightly restricted the applicability of interest u/s 234B on the total income disclosed in the Statement of Facts (SOF) up to the date of admission of the application u/s 245D(1). For considering the application, the ITSC must be satisfied that the applicant made a full and true disclosure regarding income and the settlement amount. After admission, the ITSC can call for reports, records, and undertake further inquiry under sub-sections (3) and (4), wherein the final amount payable could hypothetically be more than disclosed in the SOF. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Brij Lal, the interest liability u/s 234B cannot extend beyond the date of admission u/s 245D(1). Therefore, the ITSC correctly limited the interest liability to the date of admission, and the High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging this.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
