Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
