Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
ITAT dismissed the assessee's miscellaneous application seeking rectification under section 254(2). The tribunal held that the application was essentially attempting to review the original order, which is impermissible under law. Established judicial precedent confirms that review disguised as rectification is not allowed. An oversight of fact or failure to consider an argument does not constitute an apparent mistake rectifiable under the provision. The tribunal's original findings on section 69A and 115BBE remained unchanged, and the application was rejected on procedural grounds, maintaining the integrity of the original appellate order.
ITAT dismissed the assessee's miscellaneous application seeking rectification under section 254(2). The tribunal held that the application was essentially attempting to review the original order, which is impermissible under law. Established judicial precedent confirms that review disguised as rectification is not allowed. An oversight of fact or failure to consider an argument does not constitute an apparent mistake rectifiable under the provision. The tribunal's original findings on section 69A and 115BBE remained unchanged, and the application was rejected on procedural grounds, maintaining the integrity of the original appellate order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.