Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4784
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95673 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.