Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Exempt-income expenditure disallowance is confined to investments that actually generated exempt income, while supported business expenses remain dedu...
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 
