Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
HC held that ITAT exceeded its limited rectification jurisdiction under s.254(2) by effectively reviewing and re-adjudicating the appeal on merits. The Tribunal's rectification order dated 26.03.2013, which recalled its earlier order, reassessed the profit rate and revised the estimated income to 50% of the original assessment, was held to be perverse, illegal and beyond the scope of s.254(2). HC reiterated that s.254(2) permits only correction of mistakes apparent on the face of the record and is not an appeal in disguise. Consequently, the rectification order was set aside and the earlier ITAT order dated 21.09.2011, fixing profit at 5%, was restored.
HC held that ITAT exceeded its limited rectification jurisdiction under s.254(2) by effectively reviewing and re-adjudicating the appeal on merits. The Tribunal's rectification order dated 26.03.2013, which recalled its earlier order, reassessed the profit rate and revised the estimated income to 50% of the original assessment, was held to be perverse, illegal and beyond the scope of s.254(2). HC reiterated that s.254(2) permits only correction of mistakes apparent on the face of the record and is not an appeal in disguise. Consequently, the rectification order was set aside and the earlier ITAT order dated 21.09.2011, fixing profit at 5%, was restored.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.