<?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>2021 (5) TMI 332 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407453</link>
    <description>Under Section 245(C), a valid settlement application requires a full and true disclosure of income, the manner of derivation, and the additional tax payable; this is a jurisdictional precondition for the Settlement Commission to act. Where the initial disclosure is incomplete and revised statements are later filed to offer additional income, the defect goes to maintainability and the settlement route cannot be used to bypass regular assessment. The Commission also cannot assume the Assessing Officer&#039;s role beyond a valid application. The Madras HC held that the application was not maintainable and that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to proceed, so the settlement order was interfered with in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 May 2021 08:37:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=643957" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (5) TMI 332 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407453</link>
      <description>Under Section 245(C), a valid settlement application requires a full and true disclosure of income, the manner of derivation, and the additional tax payable; this is a jurisdictional precondition for the Settlement Commission to act. Where the initial disclosure is incomplete and revised statements are later filed to offer additional income, the defect goes to maintainability and the settlement route cannot be used to bypass regular assessment. The Commission also cannot assume the Assessing Officer&#039;s role beyond a valid application. The Madras HC held that the application was not maintainable and that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to proceed, so the settlement order was interfered with in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407453</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>