Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - tax paid on more than one occasion, and claims its refund u/s 154 - The High Court referred to Article 265 of the Constitution of India, which states that taxes cannot be levied or collected except by authority of law. They analyzed previous court judgments and concluded that both errors of fact and errors of law can constitute 'error apparent on the face of record'. The key criterion is that the error should be clear, obvious, and not require elaborate arguments to establish. Since this error was apparent from the records, the Court concluded that it fell within the scope of Section 154.
Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - tax paid on more than one occasion, and claims its refund u/s 154 - The High Court referred to Article 265 of the Constitution of India, which states that taxes cannot be levied or collected except by authority of law. They analyzed previous court judgments and concluded that both errors of fact and errors of law can constitute 'error apparent on the face of record'. The key criterion is that the error should be clear, obvious, and not require elaborate arguments to establish. Since this error was apparent from the records, the Court concluded that it fell within the scope of Section 154.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.