{"id":137134,"date":"2008-09-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-settlement-commission-it-wt-on-19-september-2008"},"modified":"2017-09-09T12:25:34","modified_gmt":"2017-09-09T06:55:34","slug":"the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-settlement-commission-it-wt-on-19-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-settlement-commission-it-wt-on-19-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Settlement Commission (It & Wt) on 19 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Settlement Commission (It & Wt) on 19 September, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 36138 of 2004(B)\n\n\n1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SETTLEMENT COMMISSION (IT & WT),\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. SHRI.K.A.DAVIS,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.R.SUDHAKARAN PILLAI\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR\n\n Dated :19\/09\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                   K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.\n                   ----------------------------------------\n                     W.P.(C) No.36138 OF 2004\n                   ----------------------------------------\n         Dated this the 19th day of September, 2008\n\n                             J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
                             ~~~~~~~~~~~<\/p>\n
     The Commissioner of Income Tax challenges Ext.P3 order<\/p>\n
of the 1st respondent, Settlement Commission(IT & WT), in this<\/p>\n
writ petition.      It is an order rejecting Exts.P2 and P2(A)<\/p>\n
applications filed by the petitioner for rectification of certain<\/p>\n
mistakes in Ext.P1(A) order.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     2.    The petitioner is aggrieved by paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2<\/p>\n
of Ext.P1(A). The said portions of Ext.P1(A) are quoted below<\/p>\n
for convenient reference.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            “7.1 Regarding Section 234A Interest:            Since
\n            there was no delay in the filing of the IT return for the
\n            assessment years 1991-92, 1994-95 and 1995-96, no
\n            interest u\/s 234A would be chargeable for these
\n            assessment years. For the assessment year 1992-93,
\n            we hold that no interest u\/s 234A is chargeable in
\n            respect of the period of delay of 4 months in the filing
\n            of the Income Tax return, since there was a
\n            reasonable cause for this delay as the applicant had
\n            to face the action u\/s 132 on 5.2.1992. However, for
\n            the assessment year 1993-94, the interest would be
\n            charged for the period of delay of 3 months in the
\n            filing of the IT return on 21.7.1994, as against the due
\n            date of 31.10.1993.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
W.P.(C) No.36138\/2004                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
             7.2    The interest u\/s 234B shall be charged upto the
\n             date of the Section 143(3) order for the assessment
\n             year 1991-92 and upto the date of the order u\/s 143(1)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (a) for the assessment years 1992-93 to 1995-96 in the
\n             light of the Special Bench decision of the Settlement
\n             Commission,     Bombay    in  the   case   of   Guljaj
\n             Engineering      Construction     Co.    &      Others
\n             [215\/ITR 1(AT)].”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.     Aggrieved by the waiver of interest allowed by<\/p>\n
Settlement Commission under Sections 234A and 234B of the<\/p>\n
Income Tax Act, The petitioner preferred Ext.P2 petition. It was<\/p>\n
pointed out that the waiver granted was in violation of the law<\/p>\n
laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Anjum M.H.Ghaswala and<\/p>\n
others<\/a> [252 ITR(1)] dated 18.10.2001. The said application was<\/p>\n
considered and rejected by Ext.P3 by the 1st respondent in the<\/p>\n
following manner.\n<\/p>\n
            “10.2. As regards the first Miscellaneous Petition
\n            filed by the Department on 18.3.2002 relying on the
\n            decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court CIT v. Anjum
\n            M.H.Ghaswala and Others<\/a> [2001] 252 ITR 1 (SC) it
\n            is found that the matter is squarely covered by the
\n            decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case
\n            of Netai Chandra Rarhi & Co.v. ITSC [2003] 263
\n            ITR 186 (Cal). The relevant extracts have already
\n            been quoted above in para 7.1. Respectfully following
\n            the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court it is
\n            held that as on the date of application the matter
\n            regarding the ratio of decision in the case of CIT v.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
W.P.(C) No.36138\/2004                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
            Anjum M.H.Ghaswala and Others was debatable and
\n            therefore, rectification was not possible as on the
\n            date of filing of Miscellaneous Petition by the
\n            Department.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4.     The petitioner attacks the above decision contending<\/p>\n
that when there is a direct decision of the Constitution Bench of<\/p>\n
the Apex Court, the same can never be treated as a debatable<\/p>\n
point by Inferior courts and Tribunals, even assuming a Bench of<\/p>\n
two Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have raised doubts<\/p>\n
regarding the correctness of that decision.<\/p>\n
     5.     Ext.P2(A) application was filed to correct the error in<\/p>\n
Ext.P1(A) regarding the terminal date for charging interest<\/p>\n
under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act.                 The Settlement<\/p>\n
Commission ordered to charge interest for the respective<\/p>\n
assessment years upto the date of order of assessment or the<\/p>\n
date of intimation of that order, as the case may be. But, in view<\/p>\n
of the decision of the Apex Court, the terminal date should be<\/p>\n
the date of the decision of the Settlement Commission. The said<\/p>\n
application was considered and rejected by the Settlement<\/p>\n
Commission as per Ext.P3 order in the following manner.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.36138\/2004                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
             “11.1 As regards the second Miscellaneous Petition
\n             filed by the Department on 3.7.2003 relying on the
\n             decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
\n             CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers [2003] 259 ITR 449
\n             (SC) it is held that the decision of the Hon’ble
\n             Supreme Court was pronounced much after the
\n             expiry of limitation period and therefore, the same
\n             cannot be pressed into service for rectifying a
\n             mistake which already got time barred on an earlier
\n             date.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             11.2   The second Miscellaneous Petition filed by the
\n             Department on 3.7.2003 is also dismissed.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6.     The petitioner would submit that the Settlement<\/p>\n
Commission has got inherent power to correct any mistake by<\/p>\n
virtue of Section 245F of the Act and therefore, the Commission<\/p>\n
should have allowed Ext.P2(A) application.<\/p>\n
     7.     The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit<\/p>\n
supporting the impugned order and the petitioner has filed a<\/p>\n
reply affidavit.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     8.     I heard Mr.P.K.R.Menon, learned Senior Counsel for<\/p>\n
the Government of India (Taxes), and Mr.K.R.Sudhakaran Pillai,<\/p>\n
learned Counsel who appeared for the 2nd respondent.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.36138\/2004               5<\/span><\/p>\n
     9.     It is not seriously disputed that when an application<\/p>\n
for rectification is filed, within the permitted time limit, based on<\/p>\n
a subsequent decision of the Apex Court, directly on the point ,<\/p>\n
normally, it has to be entertained.         But, in this case, the<\/p>\n
Settlement Commission has rejected Ext.P2 on the ground that<\/p>\n
the issue raised is a debatable issue. But, I feel that when there<\/p>\n
is a decision of the Apex Court, no inferior court or Tribunal can<\/p>\n
say that the issue is a debatable issue for the reason that a<\/p>\n
Bench of two judges of the Apex Court has doubted the<\/p>\n
correctness of the decision of the Constitution Bench. Even<\/p>\n
assuming there is a final judgment of a two Judge Bench of the<\/p>\n
Apex Court, the same has to be ignored and inferior courts and<\/p>\n
Tribunals are bound to follow the decision of the Constitution<\/p>\n
Bench in view of the law relating to precedents and also article<\/p>\n
141 of the Constitution of India. So, the rejection of Ext.P2<\/p>\n
application is unjustified.      Accordingly, Ext.P3 order to the<\/p>\n
extent it rejects Ext.P2 is set aside and the said application is<\/p>\n
remitted to the 1st respondent for disposal, in accordance with<\/p>\n
law, as expeditiously as possible.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.36138\/2004             6<\/span><\/p>\n
     10. Ext.P2(A) application has been rejected on the ground<\/p>\n
of limitation. Though the learned senior counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
the writ petitioner raised several points to review that decision, I<\/p>\n
feel that the view taken by the Settlement Commission is a<\/p>\n
plausible view and this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction<\/p>\n
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not justified in<\/p>\n
interfering with it. Normally, power to review or recall an order<\/p>\n
can be exercised, if only, it is expressively conferred by the<\/p>\n
statute. In limited circumstances, to correct patent mistakes<\/p>\n
inherent jurisdiction is also conceded to Courts and Tribunals.<\/p>\n
But, I think on the facts of the case, the point involved is not one,<\/p>\n
where this Court should compel the Settlement Commission to<\/p>\n
entertain a time barred petition.   Normally, a petition barred by<\/p>\n
time limit has to be rejected. Such an order cannot be described<\/p>\n
as an order which is ultravires or one passed without<\/p>\n
jurisdiction. In the result, the challenge against the rejection of<\/p>\n
Ext.P2(A) is repelled.\n<\/p>\n
     The writ petition is disposed of as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                           (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
ps<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Settlement Commission (It & Wt) on 19 September, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 36138 of 2004(B) 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, … Petitioner Vs 1. SETTLEMENT COMMISSION (IT & WT), … Respondent 2. SHRI.K.A.DAVIS, For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES) For Respondent :SRI.K.R.SUDHAKARAN […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-137134","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Settlement Commission (It & Wt) on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-settlement-commission-it-wt-on-19-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Settlement Commission (It & Wt) on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-settlement-commission-it-wt-on-19-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-09T06:55:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-settlement-commission-it-wt-on-19-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-settlement-commission-it-wt-on-19-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Settlement Commission (It & Wt) on 19 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-09T06:55:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-settlement-commission-it-wt-on-19-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1241,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-settlement-commission-it-wt-on-19-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-settlement-commission-it-wt-on-19-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-settlement-commission-it-wt-on-19-september-2008\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Settlement Commission (It & Wt) on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-09T06:55:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-settlement-commission-it-wt-on-19-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-settlement-commission-it-wt-on-19-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-settlement-commission-it-wt-on-19-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Settlement Commission (It & Wt) on 19 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Settlement Commission (It & Wt) on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-settlement-commission-it-wt-on-19-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Settlement Commission (It & Wt) on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-settlement-commission-it-wt-on-19-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-09T06:55:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-settlement-commission-it-wt-on-19-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-settlement-commission-it-wt-on-19-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Settlement Commission (It & Wt) on 19 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-09T06:55:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-settlement-commission-it-wt-on-19-september-2008"},"wordCount":1241,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-settlement-commission-it-wt-on-19-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-settlement-commission-it-wt-on-19-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-settlement-commission-it-wt-on-19-september-2008","name":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Settlement Commission (It & Wt) on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-09T06:55:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-settlement-commission-it-wt-on-19-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-settlement-commission-it-wt-on-19-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-settlement-commission-it-wt-on-19-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Settlement Commission (It & Wt) on 19 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137134","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=137134"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137134\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=137134"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=137134"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=137134"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}