Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
The ITAT rectified its earlier appellate order under the mistake apparent from record doctrine by correcting the recorded basis for relief on corporate guarantee fee and MEIS export incentives. For the corporate guarantee issue, the correction clarified that non-interference rested on earlier-year acceptance by the TPO/AO at arm's length and absence of any change in facts, rather than on coordinate Bench rulings. For MEIS incentives, the order was amended to reflect reliance on Chennai, Delhi and Mumbai ITAT decisions and the Commissioner (Appeals)'s earlier-year orders. The miscellaneous application was allowed, and the substantive outcome remained unchanged.
The ITAT rectified its earlier appellate order under the mistake apparent from record doctrine by correcting the recorded basis for relief on corporate guarantee fee and MEIS export incentives. For the corporate guarantee issue, the correction clarified that non-interference rested on earlier-year acceptance by the TPO/AO at arm's length and absence of any change in facts, rather than on coordinate Bench rulings. For MEIS incentives, the order was amended to reflect reliance on Chennai, Delhi and Mumbai ITAT decisions and the Commissioner (Appeals)'s earlier-year orders. The miscellaneous application was allowed, and the substantive outcome remained unchanged.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.