Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Tribunal held that an order passed following binding precedents...
Tribunal: Order based on binding precedent can't be recalled/reviewed due to later contrary higher court judgment. Final order can't be reopened u/s 254(2).
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Tribunal held that an order passed following binding precedents cannot be recalled or reviewed based on a subsequent contrary judgment of a higher court. Once an order attains finality between parties, it cannot be reopened or reviewed u/s 254(2) due to a later overruling judgment. The power u/s 254(2) is akin to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and cannot be exercised beyond the scope of review under that provision. Consequently, the department's application seeking recall of the Tribunal's order based on a subsequent Supreme Court judgment was dismissed.
Tribunal held that an order passed following binding precedents cannot be recalled or reviewed based on a subsequent contrary judgment of a higher court. Once an order attains finality between parties, it cannot be reopened or reviewed u/s 254(2) due to a later overruling judgment. The power u/s 254(2) is akin to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and cannot be exercised beyond the scope of review under that provision. Consequently, the department's application seeking recall of the Tribunal's order based on a subsequent Supreme Court judgment was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.