Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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.