Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - limited scrutiny of “Agricultural Income” - The High Court deliberated on the challenge to an Impugned Notice issued u/s 154 - It examined the contentions of both parties regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and the scope of rectification u/s 154. Finding that certain issues raised in the notice were not addressed in the original Assessment Order, the Court affirmed the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to rectify such errors. It emphasized that the power to rectify extends to mistakes of fact or law apparent from the record. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the Impugned Notice and allowing for further proceedings.
Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - limited scrutiny of “Agricultural Income” - The High Court deliberated on the challenge to an Impugned Notice issued u/s 154 - It examined the contentions of both parties regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and the scope of rectification u/s 154. Finding that certain issues raised in the notice were not addressed in the original Assessment Order, the Court affirmed the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to rectify such errors. It emphasized that the power to rectify extends to mistakes of fact or law apparent from the record. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the Impugned Notice and allowing for further proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.