https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339161 Judicial review of a Settlement Commission order is limited to perversity, statutory violation, mala fides, or decision-making error. Enhancement of income by itself does not prove absence of full and true disclosure under section 245C(1) where primary facts were disclosed. A higher estimate of expenditure, rejection of parking charge claims, or adoption of a different view on on-money receipts does not by itself make the disclosure false or incomplete. No illegality was shown under sections 37 or 40A(3) because the record did not establish prohibited expenditure or cash payments beyond the statutory limit. Partial immunity under section 245H was also held not to be barred for penalty exposure under sections 271D and 271E. en-us Tue, 14 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Jul 2018 18:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339161 Judicial review of a Settlement Commission order is limited to perversity, statutory violation, mala fides, or decision-making error. Enhancement of income by itself does not prove absence of full and true disclosure under section 245C(1) where primary facts were disclosed. A higher estimate of expenditure, rejection of parking charge claims, or adoption of a different view on on-money receipts does not by itself make the disclosure false or incomplete. No illegality was shown under sections 37 or 40A(3) because the record did not establish prohibited expenditure or cash payments beyond the statutory limit. Partial immunity under section 245H was also held not to be barred for penalty exposure under sections 271D and 271E. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 14 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339161