https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756662 The Bombay HC quashed an order by the Interim Board of Settlement rejecting petitioner's settlement application. The IBS had rejected the application based on eligibility conditions in CBDT's notification dated 21st September 2021, which required assessees to be eligible for settlement on 21st January 2021. Following precedent in Sar Senapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Factory Ltd., the HC held that CBDT lacked power under Section 119 to impose such additional eligibility conditions for extending the cut-off date under Section 245C. The notification's Para 4 was declared invalid and beyond statutory mandate, making petitioner eligible for settlement consideration. en-us Wed, 24 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Aug 2024 10:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756662 The Bombay HC quashed an order by the Interim Board of Settlement rejecting petitioner's settlement application. The IBS had rejected the application based on eligibility conditions in CBDT's notification dated 21st September 2021, which required assessees to be eligible for settlement on 21st January 2021. Following precedent in Sar Senapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Factory Ltd., the HC held that CBDT lacked power under Section 119 to impose such additional eligibility conditions for extending the cut-off date under Section 245C. The notification's Para 4 was declared invalid and beyond statutory mandate, making petitioner eligible for settlement consideration. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 24 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756662