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...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
The Tribunal held that in a case involving a requisition u/s 132A of the Act, the jurisdiction to complete the assessment is governed by the provisions of Section 153A. The department's arguments for rectification u/s 254(2) were rejected as they did not point out any mistake apparent on record. The Tribunal observed that the department's contentions required lengthy deliberation and debate, which does not qualify as a mistake apparent from record for rectification. The Tribunal clarified that it has limited powers to rectify apparent and glaring mistakes, and cannot rehear the entire case on merits or revisit its earlier order based on arguments. The department's request for rehearing/review in the garb of rectification through long-drawn reasoning and arguments is neither permissible nor allowed under the Act. The Miscellaneous Application was rejected as the department failed to identify any mistake apparent from record warranting rectification u/s 254(2).
The Tribunal held that in a case involving a requisition u/s 132A of the Act, the jurisdiction to complete the assessment is governed by the provisions of Section 153A. The department's arguments for rectification u/s 254(2) were rejected as they did not point out any mistake apparent on record. The Tribunal observed that the department's contentions required lengthy deliberation and debate, which does not qualify as a mistake apparent from record for rectification. The Tribunal clarified that it has limited powers to rectify apparent and glaring mistakes, and cannot rehear the entire case on merits or revisit its earlier order based on arguments. The department's request for rehearing/review in the garb of rectification through long-drawn reasoning and arguments is neither permissible nor allowed under the Act. The Miscellaneous Application was rejected as the department failed to identify any mistake apparent from record warranting rectification u/s 254(2).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
