Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Rectification under section 154 cannot be used to reopen a claim on surcharge and education cess under the India-USA DTAA once the issue has already been decided in a speaking appellate order. The Tribunal held that this was not a mistake apparent from the record, because section 154 does not permit reappreciation or modification of a concluded issue. It also noted that the jurisdictional High Court had taken the same view against the assessee. The rectification order was therefore upheld and the assessee's challenge failed.
Rectification under section 154 cannot be used to reopen a claim on surcharge and education cess under the India-USA DTAA once the issue has already been decided in a speaking appellate order. The Tribunal held that this was not a mistake apparent from the record, because section 154 does not permit reappreciation or modification of a concluded issue. It also noted that the jurisdictional High Court had taken the same view against the assessee. The rectification order was therefore upheld and the assessee's challenge failed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.