Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
HC held that the assessee's rectification application under s. 254(2) was within limitation, as the limitation period commences from the date of service of the order sought to be rectified, read harmoniously with the relevant Tribunal Rules requiring copies of the order to accompany such application. Since the order was served only on 24 March 2025 and the miscellaneous application was filed within six months thereof, ITAT erred in treating it as time-barred and in relying on the Leena Power Tech decision, which was distinguishable. The writ petition was disposed of by clarifying that all grounds on merits remain open to be urged in the pending appeal against the original order.
HC held that the assessee's rectification application under s. 254(2) was within limitation, as the limitation period commences from the date of service of the order sought to be rectified, read harmoniously with the relevant Tribunal Rules requiring copies of the order to accompany such application. Since the order was served only on 24 March 2025 and the miscellaneous application was filed within six months thereof, ITAT erred in treating it as time-barred and in relying on the Leena Power Tech decision, which was distinguishable. The writ petition was disposed of by clarifying that all grounds on merits remain open to be urged in the pending appeal against the original order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.