Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
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.