Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
The HC dismissed rectification under Section 254(2) sought to alter an ITAT order which had deleted a disallowance made in an intimation under Section 143(1) where the Assessee's belated deposit of employees' PF/ESI had been disallowed under Section 36(1)(va). The court held that a subsequent SC pronouncement cannot constitute a mistake apparent on the record for purposes of Section 254(2). Because the ITAT's original order conformed to the law as it existed when rendered, no error apparent on the face of the record existed to permit rectification; therefore the rectification invocation was barred.
The HC dismissed rectification under Section 254(2) sought to alter an ITAT order which had deleted a disallowance made in an intimation under Section 143(1) where the Assessee's belated deposit of employees' PF/ESI had been disallowed under Section 36(1)(va). The court held that a subsequent SC pronouncement cannot constitute a mistake apparent on the record for purposes of Section 254(2). Because the ITAT's original order conformed to the law as it existed when rendered, no error apparent on the face of the record existed to permit rectification; therefore the rectification invocation was barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.