https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779978 A retrospective amendment abolishing the Settlement Commission did not, by itself, extinguish settlement applications filed under section 245C during the interregnum between 01.02.2021 and 31.03.2021. The Delhi HC treated such applications as valid and pending before the Interim Board, holding that completed acts of filing could not be nullified absent express words or necessary implication, and that the CBDT order could not impose a narrower eligibility cut-off than the Act. As the applications remained pending, consequential notices under sections 143(2), 142(1), 153A and 153C were kept in abeyance until the Interim Board decided the settlement applications. en-us Mon, 06 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Feb 2026 12:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779978 A retrospective amendment abolishing the Settlement Commission did not, by itself, extinguish settlement applications filed under section 245C during the interregnum between 01.02.2021 and 31.03.2021. The Delhi HC treated such applications as valid and pending before the Interim Board, holding that completed acts of filing could not be nullified absent express words or necessary implication, and that the CBDT order could not impose a narrower eligibility cut-off than the Act. As the applications remained pending, consequential notices under sections 143(2), 142(1), 153A and 153C were kept in abeyance until the Interim Board decided the settlement applications. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 06 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779978