https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8554 An approved settlement under section 34(1B) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 created a binding obligation to pay an additional sum linked to two-thirds of the appreciation in share value, even though the exact figure was not fixed when the settlement was made. The liability was enforceable because the contingent payment formed part of the settlement terms accepted by the revenue authorities. Later quantification by the Income-tax Officer did not invalidate the demand, as the amount became payable only on actual appreciation and no prejudice, excessive computation, or infringement of a legal right was shown. On that basis, writ relief under article 226 was unavailable. en-us Wed, 15 Dec 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8554 An approved settlement under section 34(1B) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 created a binding obligation to pay an additional sum linked to two-thirds of the appreciation in share value, even though the exact figure was not fixed when the settlement was made. The liability was enforceable because the contingent payment formed part of the settlement terms accepted by the revenue authorities. Later quantification by the Income-tax Officer did not invalidate the demand, as the amount became payable only on actual appreciation and no prejudice, excessive computation, or infringement of a legal right was shown. On that basis, writ relief under article 226 was unavailable. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 15 Dec 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8554