Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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.