https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203863 The court held that the Settlement Commission did not become functus officio and retains jurisdiction to deal with matters afresh. It found that the Settlement Commission failed to follow the mandatory procedure under section 245D(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, rendering its orders null and void. The court set aside a direction on interest rate for refunds and emphasized the need for proper examination of records and giving an opportunity of hearing. The court dismissed intra-court appeals, directing the Settlement Commission to decide the cases afresh within six months, emphasizing compliance with legal provisions. en-us Fri, 06 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203863 The court held that the Settlement Commission did not become functus officio and retains jurisdiction to deal with matters afresh. It found that the Settlement Commission failed to follow the mandatory procedure under section 245D(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, rendering its orders null and void. The court set aside a direction on interest rate for refunds and emphasized the need for proper examination of records and giving an opportunity of hearing. The court dismissed intra-court appeals, directing the Settlement Commission to decide the cases afresh within six months, emphasizing compliance with legal provisions. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 06 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203863