Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1121 to 1140 of 96262 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 while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, it does not assume the role of an appellate authority to conduct a merit review of orders passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission. Its role is confined to judicial review by applying well-settled principles. The Court would be concerned with the decision-making process adopted by the Commission, not the decision itself. The scope of inquiry is limited to whether the Commission's order complies with statutory provisions of Chapter XIX-A of the Income Tax Act. The Court cannot decide on facts or interpretation of documents. A defect vitiating a settlement must vitiate the whole, not merely a part. A settlement partakes the nature of a negotiated contract with a "give and take." The settlement must fail or succeed as a whole, as partial acceptance is not envisaged under the Income Tax Act. The Court must defer to the statutory finality envisaged for settlement while exercising judicial review. The Writ Appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, it does not assume the role of an appellate authority to conduct a merit review of orders passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission. Its role is confined to judicial review by applying well-settled principles. The Court would be concerned with the decision-making process adopted by the Commission, not the decision itself. The scope of inquiry is limited to whether the Commission's order complies with statutory provisions of Chapter XIX-A of the Income Tax Act. The Court cannot decide on facts or interpretation of documents. A defect vitiating a settlement must vitiate the whole, not merely a part. A settlement partakes the nature of a negotiated contract with a "give and take." The settlement must fail or succeed as a whole, as partial acceptance is not envisaged under the Income Tax Act. The Court must defer to the statutory finality envisaged for settlement while exercising judicial review. The Writ Appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
