https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89617 The HC upheld the validity of orders passed by the Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Section 22D(4) of the Wealth Tax Act. The court held that Settlement Commission members are appointed as government representatives with expertise and integrity to settle tax disputes, and the government cannot challenge decisions made by its own appointed representatives absent allegations of bias, fraud, or malice. The HC emphasized that courts discover existing law rather than create new rules, and subsequent judicial decisions clarifying legal principles operate retrospectively. Since no bias, fraud, or malice was alleged against the Settlement Commission's order, the government's challenge was rejected and the appeal was allowed. en-us Fri, 20 Jun 2025 08:35:03 +0530 Fri, 20 Jun 2025 08:35:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89617 The HC upheld the validity of orders passed by the Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Section 22D(4) of the Wealth Tax Act. The court held that Settlement Commission members are appointed as government representatives with expertise and integrity to settle tax disputes, and the government cannot challenge decisions made by its own appointed representatives absent allegations of bias, fraud, or malice. The HC emphasized that courts discover existing law rather than create new rules, and subsequent judicial decisions clarifying legal principles operate retrospectively. Since no bias, fraud, or malice was alleged against the Settlement Commission's order, the government's challenge was rejected and the appeal was allowed. Highlights Income Tax Fri, 20 Jun 2025 08:35:03 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89617