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...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1501 to 1520 of 96363 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 4819 
Join Channel 
