Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
The High Court held that the Settlement Commission cannot reopen or rectify its concluded settlement order under Section 154 to impose interest under Section 234B, following Supreme Court precedent. The Commission's rectification order rectifying the settlement order passed under Section 245D(4) was quashed as invalid, and the consequent demand notice was set aside. The court rejected Revenue's submission that interest should be levied from intimation under Section 143(1) until admission, holding that reopening concluded proceedings indirectly would contravene the settled rule against such reopening. Writ petition allowed.
The High Court held that the Settlement Commission cannot reopen or rectify its concluded settlement order under Section 154 to impose interest under Section 234B, following Supreme Court precedent. The Commission's rectification order rectifying the settlement order passed under Section 245D(4) was quashed as invalid, and the consequent demand notice was set aside. The court rejected Revenue's submission that interest should be levied from intimation under Section 143(1) until admission, holding that reopening concluded proceedings indirectly would contravene the settled rule against such reopening. Writ petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
