<?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 (2) TMI 16 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6157</link>
    <description>Chapter XIX-A settlement requires full and true disclosure, and although an order under section 245D(4) attains finality under section 245I, that finality does not prevent the Settlement Commission from examining whether the settlement was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts under section 245D(6). The Commission has jurisdiction to determine that question, and it need not act only on its own motion. Where the Revenue places material suggesting fraud or misrepresentation, the Commission may consider it without this amounting to review or appellate reappraisal of the earlier settlement order. The Revenue&#039;s application was therefore maintainable and the matter had to be reconsidered.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 17:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=45240" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 16 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6157</link>
      <description>Chapter XIX-A settlement requires full and true disclosure, and although an order under section 245D(4) attains finality under section 245I, that finality does not prevent the Settlement Commission from examining whether the settlement was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts under section 245D(6). The Commission has jurisdiction to determine that question, and it need not act only on its own motion. Where the Revenue places material suggesting fraud or misrepresentation, the Commission may consider it without this amounting to review or appellate reappraisal of the earlier settlement order. The Revenue&#039;s application was therefore maintainable and the matter had to be reconsidered.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6157</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>