Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
The HC held that the rectification applications under Section 161 were improperly employed to recall an order allowing the petitioner's appeal; such relief cannot substitute for the statutory appellate remedy. The court found no error apparent on the face of the record warranting rectification, as the impugned orders required substantive examination rather than a manifest clerical mistake. Consequently the rectification orders were quashed, the order allowing the appeal was restored, and the petition was allowed. The HC emphasized that an aggrieved party must pursue the prescribed statutory remedy rather than seek recall via Section 161.
The HC held that the rectification applications under Section 161 were improperly employed to recall an order allowing the petitioner's appeal; such relief cannot substitute for the statutory appellate remedy. The court found no error apparent on the face of the record warranting rectification, as the impugned orders required substantive examination rather than a manifest clerical mistake. Consequently the rectification orders were quashed, the order allowing the appeal was restored, and the petition was allowed. The HC emphasized that an aggrieved party must pursue the prescribed statutory remedy rather than seek recall via Section 161.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.