<?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>2017 (6) TMI 787 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344516</link>
    <description>A settlement application requires full and true disclosure of income and material facts before the Settlement Commission can exercise jurisdiction. Judicial review of a Commission order is confined to illegality, perversity, bias, fraud, malice, or statutory breach, and the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence as an appellate forum. On the facts, the assessee participated throughout, did not object to the procedural course when issues arose, and the Commission&#039;s finding that there was no clean hands disclosure was not shown to be perverse or unlawful. The challenge therefore failed, and the Commission&#039;s order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2017 15:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=473477" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 787 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344516</link>
      <description>A settlement application requires full and true disclosure of income and material facts before the Settlement Commission can exercise jurisdiction. Judicial review of a Commission order is confined to illegality, perversity, bias, fraud, malice, or statutory breach, and the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence as an appellate forum. On the facts, the assessee participated throughout, did not object to the procedural course when issues arose, and the Commission&#039;s finding that there was no clean hands disclosure was not shown to be perverse or unlawful. The challenge therefore failed, and the Commission&#039;s order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344516</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>