Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.