Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Page of 4782
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95636 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Rectification of mistake is confined to a manifest, self-evident...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving finality.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Rectification of mistake is confined to a manifest, self-evident error apparent from the record and cannot require elaborate reasoning, reappreciation of evidence, or reconsideration of legal findings. Errors in reasoning or application of law must be addressed through the prescribed appellate process; applications labelled as clarification, modification, recall, or miscellaneous applications cannot operate as review mechanisms. Binding Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court precedent must be followed, and a contrary coordinate-bench view does not justify a Larger Bench reference where it disregards binding authority. The text notes that the rectification request concerning confiscation, reverse burden, and penalties was rejected because it sought a merits rehearing rather than correction of an apparent error.
Rectification of mistake is confined to a manifest, self-evident error apparent from the record and cannot require elaborate reasoning, reappreciation of evidence, or reconsideration of legal findings. Errors in reasoning or application of law must be addressed through the prescribed appellate process; applications labelled as clarification, modification, recall, or miscellaneous applications cannot operate as review mechanisms. Binding Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court precedent must be followed, and a contrary coordinate-bench view does not justify a Larger Bench reference where it disregards binding authority. The text notes that the rectification request concerning confiscation, reverse burden, and penalties was rejected because it sought a merits rehearing rather than correction of an apparent error.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.