https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757324 The HC quashed the Interim Board for Settlement's order rejecting petitioner's settlement application under Section 245D(4). The Board had held the application was not maintainable as no proceedings were pending on 31 January 2021 for relevant assessment years. Following precedent in Sar Senapati case, the HC ruled that CBDT's notification dated 21 September 2021 imposing additional eligibility conditions in paragraph 4 was beyond CBDT's powers under Section 119. The HC held the Board incorrectly rejected the settlement application and allowed the writ petition, consistent with similar ruling in Vishwakarma Developers case. en-us Wed, 07 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757324 The HC quashed the Interim Board for Settlement's order rejecting petitioner's settlement application under Section 245D(4). The Board had held the application was not maintainable as no proceedings were pending on 31 January 2021 for relevant assessment years. Following precedent in Sar Senapati case, the HC ruled that CBDT's notification dated 21 September 2021 imposing additional eligibility conditions in paragraph 4 was beyond CBDT's powers under Section 119. The HC held the Board incorrectly rejected the settlement application and allowed the writ petition, consistent with similar ruling in Vishwakarma Developers case. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 07 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757324