https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796896 The statutory eighteen-month period for an Interim Board to decide a pending settlement application begins on its first allotment and receipt by that Board, not on a later administrative transfer. Under Sections 245D(4A)(iii), 245D(9)(iii) and 245M(2), prior exercise of jurisdiction, including calling for a Rule 9 report under the e-Settlement Scheme, establishes that allotment had occurred. An administrative movement of the file cannot restart or extend the prescribed period, since repeated transfers could otherwise indefinitely enlarge the deadline. The period is mandatory; orders passed after its expiry are time-barred, without jurisdiction and a nullity. en-us Mon, 10 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Aug 2026 08:20:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796896 The statutory eighteen-month period for an Interim Board to decide a pending settlement application begins on its first allotment and receipt by that Board, not on a later administrative transfer. Under Sections 245D(4A)(iii), 245D(9)(iii) and 245M(2), prior exercise of jurisdiction, including calling for a Rule 9 report under the e-Settlement Scheme, establishes that allotment had occurred. An administrative movement of the file cannot restart or extend the prescribed period, since repeated transfers could otherwise indefinitely enlarge the deadline. The period is mandatory; orders passed after its expiry are time-barred, without jurisdiction and a nullity. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 10 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796896