{"id":22176,"date":"2021-10-05T18:10:37","date_gmt":"2021-10-05T12:40:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/ess-and-ess-infrastructure-pvt-ltd-v-itsc-2021-435-itr-671-281-taxman-340-mad-hc\/"},"modified":"2022-02-09T06:32:26","modified_gmt":"2022-02-09T01:02:26","slug":"ess-and-ess-infrastructure-pvt-ltd-v-itsc-2021-435-itr-671-281-taxman-340-mad-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/ess-and-ess-infrastructure-pvt-ltd-v-itsc-2021-435-itr-671-281-taxman-340-mad-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Ess and Ess Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. ITSC (2021) 435 ITR 671 \/ 281 Taxman 340\/ 207 DTR 374\/ 323 CTR 598 (Mad.)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Writ petitions were filed against the order of the Settlement Commission under section\u00a0245D(4)\u00a0of the\u00a0Income-tax Act, 1961\u00a0rejecting the application filed by the assessees for settlement of case.\u00a0 The Principal Commissioner objected that the writ petitions were not maintainable on the ground that Principal Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner were within the jurisdiction of the Karnataka High Court. Dismissing the petition the Court held that since the Principal Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner had raised objection regarding the jurisdiction on the ground that at the time of admission they were located outside the jurisdiction and within the jurisdiction of the Karnataka High Court, the writ petitions were dismissed on the ground of forum conveniens. (AY. 2008-09 to 2015-16)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Jurisdiction of  Court-Doctrine of  Forum Conveniens-Principal Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioners were with in jurisdiction of Karnataka High Court-Writ petition was dismissed on the ground of forum  conveniens. [Art. 226]  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22176","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-5LG","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22176","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22176"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22176\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24775,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22176\/revisions\/24775"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22176"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22176"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22176"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}