Admissibility of recorded statements and electronic evidence: CESTAT excludes non compliant statements and email printouts and sets aside revaluation ...
Corporate guarantee invocation in insolvency petition: enforceability upheld, conditional sanction letter not a novation, limitation not barred after ...
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 4811 
Join Channel 
