9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement Commission has become final. While that being so, if the objections of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents is to be accepted, the possibility of double taxation for one transaction may occur. This Court is of the view that the issue in the case of Umed C.Mehta could be reconsidered, in the light of the subsequent development through the orders passed by the Settlement Commission in the case of Parasmal Jain. It would not be appropriate to interfere with the present impugned notice at this stage, but, it would be appropriate to await the decision of the Settlement Commission, after remand, in the case of Umed C.Mehta. - W.P. NO. 23638 OF 2009, M.P. NO. 1 OF 2009 - - - Dated:- 9-8-2019 - M.S. Ramesh, J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondents cannot tax the petitioner herein on the same transaction, which would result in double taxation. Hence, he would submit that the order of the Settlement Commission passed in the case of Umed C.Mehta requires to be re-visited. 4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the proceedings pertaining to Umed C. Mehta before the Settlement Commission are in the nature of admonition and discretionary proceedings and therefore the findings that the income offered in one case, cannot be automatically applied and deducted in other cases, even though the transactions are one and the same and that the parties approaching the Commission should independently satisfy the Commission on all other cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, after final orders are passed by the Settlement Commission on remand. 7. It would be relevant to point out herein that when Umed C.Mehta had challenged the order of the Settlement Commission dated 23.10.2009 passed in his Settlement Application No. TN/CN7/2009-10/2/IT, before this Court in W.P.No.23631 of 2009, this Court, by an order dated 09.08.2019, had set aside the order of the 1st respondent herein dated 23.10.2009 and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. 8. In view of the above, it would not be appropriate to interfere with the present impugned notice at this stage, but, it would be appropriate to await the decision of the Settlement Commission, after remand, in the case of Umed C.Mehta. 9. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
