<?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>2024 (12) TMI 825 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763245</link>
    <description>Chapter XIXA settlement proceedings under the Income-tax Act operate as a distinct statutory mechanism based on full and true disclosure, and the Settlement Commission&#039;s order is conclusive on the matters covered by the application and related issues in the Commissioner&#039;s report. Judicial review under Article 226 is narrow: the High Court may interfere only for statutory illegality, grave procedural defect, bias, fraud, malice, or absence of nexus between reasons and decision, and it cannot reappreciate facts or sit in appeal over the Commission&#039;s merits-based findings. Because a settlement is composite, an assessee cannot accept favourable parts while challenging an adverse component in isolation. The challenge to the treatment of loan receipts as undisclosed income therefore did not justify interference, and the settlement order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Dec 2024 10:01:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=782824" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 825 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763245</link>
      <description>Chapter XIXA settlement proceedings under the Income-tax Act operate as a distinct statutory mechanism based on full and true disclosure, and the Settlement Commission&#039;s order is conclusive on the matters covered by the application and related issues in the Commissioner&#039;s report. Judicial review under Article 226 is narrow: the High Court may interfere only for statutory illegality, grave procedural defect, bias, fraud, malice, or absence of nexus between reasons and decision, and it cannot reappreciate facts or sit in appeal over the Commission&#039;s merits-based findings. Because a settlement is composite, an assessee cannot accept favourable parts while challenging an adverse component in isolation. The challenge to the treatment of loan receipts as undisclosed income therefore did not justify interference, and the settlement order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763245</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>