https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773217 The Madras HC quashed a Single Judge's order that interfered with an Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) decision. The court held that judicial review of ITSC orders has very narrow scope, and wrong interpretation of documents by ITSC does not constitute grounds for interference. Following SC precedents in Jyotendrasinhji and Kotak Mahindra Bank, the HC ruled it cannot sit in appeal over sufficiency of material before the Commission. The court emphasized ITSC's wide discretionary powers and that it serves as a forum for self-surrender, not challenging assessment orders. The Single Judge's interference was deemed erroneous and the ITSC order was restored. en-us Wed, 11 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Jun 2025 08:29:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773217 The Madras HC quashed a Single Judge's order that interfered with an Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) decision. The court held that judicial review of ITSC orders has very narrow scope, and wrong interpretation of documents by ITSC does not constitute grounds for interference. Following SC precedents in Jyotendrasinhji and Kotak Mahindra Bank, the HC ruled it cannot sit in appeal over sufficiency of material before the Commission. The court emphasized ITSC's wide discretionary powers and that it serves as a forum for self-surrender, not challenging assessment orders. The Single Judge's interference was deemed erroneous and the ITSC order was restored. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 11 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773217