Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
