<?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>2005 (8) TMI 696 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186467</link>
    <description>At an intermediate stage of settlement proceedings under Chapter XIX-A of the Income-tax Act, the High Court declined to decide maintainability of the application under section 245C(1) and left the issue open. It held that the matter was still pending before the Settlement Commission, whose object is to facilitate settlement and avoid prolonged litigation. The Commissioner was permitted to place all objections and relevant information before the Commission, and any preliminary observations in the impugned order would not bind the parties. The Commission was directed to decide the application independently on merits, uninfluenced by those observations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2016 18:10:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=441623" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (8) TMI 696 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186467</link>
      <description>At an intermediate stage of settlement proceedings under Chapter XIX-A of the Income-tax Act, the High Court declined to decide maintainability of the application under section 245C(1) and left the issue open. It held that the matter was still pending before the Settlement Commission, whose object is to facilitate settlement and avoid prolonged litigation. The Commissioner was permitted to place all objections and relevant information before the Commission, and any preliminary observations in the impugned order would not bind the parties. The Commission was directed to decide the application independently on merits, uninfluenced by those observations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186467</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>