<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (1) TMI 429 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220324</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the Income Tax Settlement Commission&#039;s application of a 12% gross profit rate for settlement under Section 245-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court upheld the Commission&#039;s decision, emphasizing its duty to independently assess evidence and materials to determine undisclosed income accurately, regardless of whether specific issues were raised in the Commissioner&#039;s report. The court highlighted that there was no restriction on applying gross profit rates during settlement proceedings and concluded that there was no basis for interference in the writ jurisdiction for judicial review.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Jun 2013 12:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=193690" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 429 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220324</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the Income Tax Settlement Commission&#039;s application of a 12% gross profit rate for settlement under Section 245-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court upheld the Commission&#039;s decision, emphasizing its duty to independently assess evidence and materials to determine undisclosed income accurately, regardless of whether specific issues were raised in the Commissioner&#039;s report. The court highlighted that there was no restriction on applying gross profit rates during settlement proceedings and concluded that there was no basis for interference in the writ jurisdiction for judicial review.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220324</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>