Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
