9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 863X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Settlement Application No. TN/CN7/2009-10/2/IT before the Income Tax Settlement Commission, who is the 1st respondent herein, he had stated that the undisclosed income admitted in the Settlement Application was a commission earned from accommodation transaction with Mr. Parasmal Jain of M/s. Kawarlal Group. This explanation was disbelieved and the Settlement Application came to be rejected on 23.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings and the application came to be disposed of. In view of the orders passed by the Settlement Commission in the case of Parasmal Jain, the 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mehta. It is not in dispute that the transactions pertaining to the undisclosed income of Umed C. Mehta is also the subject matter of the Settlement Application in the case of Parasmal Jain. If that being so, there is a possibility that such a subsequent consideration by the Settlement Commission could be deemed as double taxation, in case the order dated 23.10.2009 passed by the Settlement Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 23.10.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
