Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The case involves a review petition filed in the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking to recall an order that dismissed an appeal due to the absence of substantial questions of law. The court held that a review application is maintainable for reasons such as the discovery of new evidence, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. The review power is distinct from appellate power and cannot be used to rehash old arguments. The court cited legal precedents to emphasize that a decision can only be reviewed if it contains an error evident on the face of the record, not merely because it is erroneous. Ultimately, the court found no error apparent on the face of the record to justify interfering with the impugned order.
The case involves a review petition filed in the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking to recall an order that dismissed an appeal due to the absence of substantial questions of law. The court held that a review application is maintainable for reasons such as the discovery of new evidence, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. The review power is distinct from appellate power and cannot be used to rehash old arguments. The court cited legal precedents to emphasize that a decision can only be reviewed if it contains an error evident on the face of the record, not merely because it is erroneous. Ultimately, the court found no error apparent on the face of the record to justify interfering with the impugned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
