Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
