Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
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.