Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Rectification under section 154 is confined to manifest, patent and self-evident mistakes apparent from the record; it cannot resolve issues requiring factual examination, legal interpretation or a choice between possible views. Although non-consideration of a binding judgment may constitute such a mistake, disputed computation of taxable income after denial of exemption to an educational society-including treatment of capital receipts and capital expenditure-requires examination of the nature of receipts, expenditure and the applicable computation method. As those questions were debatable and formed part of a pending quantum appeal, rectification could not be used as a review mechanism or substitute for appellate adjudication. The rectification application was therefore rejected, subject to pursuit of grounds in the quantum appeal.
Rectification under section 154 is confined to manifest, patent and self-evident mistakes apparent from the record; it cannot resolve issues requiring factual examination, legal interpretation or a choice between possible views. Although non-consideration of a binding judgment may constitute such a mistake, disputed computation of taxable income after denial of exemption to an educational society-including treatment of capital receipts and capital expenditure-requires examination of the nature of receipts, expenditure and the applicable computation method. As those questions were debatable and formed part of a pending quantum appeal, rectification could not be used as a review mechanism or substitute for appellate adjudication. The rectification application was therefore rejected, subject to pursuit of grounds in the quantum appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.