Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
HC held that s.254(2) of the I.T. Act is analogous to Order 47 r.1 CPC and that the Explanation to Order 47 r.1 bars review on the basis of a subsequent decision of a superior court; a change in law or a later co-ordinate/larger bench ruling does not constitute a ground for invoking s.254(2). The court ruled the ITAT lacked jurisdiction to amend its earlier order by relying on a post-date superior judgment where no mistake was apparent on the record as of the original decision date. Consequently the ITAT order passed under s.254(2) was set aside, and the concomitant ITAT order under s.254(1) dismissing the appeal was also overturned.
HC held that s.254(2) of the I.T. Act is analogous to Order 47 r.1 CPC and that the Explanation to Order 47 r.1 bars review on the basis of a subsequent decision of a superior court; a change in law or a later co-ordinate/larger bench ruling does not constitute a ground for invoking s.254(2). The court ruled the ITAT lacked jurisdiction to amend its earlier order by relying on a post-date superior judgment where no mistake was apparent on the record as of the original decision date. Consequently the ITAT order passed under s.254(2) was set aside, and the concomitant ITAT order under s.254(1) dismissing the appeal was also overturned.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
