Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
Section 420 of the Companies Act confers only a limited power on the Tribunal to rectify a mistake apparent from the record within the prescribed period; it does not give a party a right to seek review or reconsideration on merits. An application styled as rectification but directed at recalling disclosure, attachment and restraint directions was treated as a review petition in substance and held not maintainable. The Appellate Tribunal relied on the principle that an error requiring reappraisal or a different view on merits is not a patent mistake capable of rectification. The refusal to recall the earlier order was therefore upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Section 420 of the Companies Act confers only a limited power on the Tribunal to rectify a mistake apparent from the record within the prescribed period; it does not give a party a right to seek review or reconsideration on merits. An application styled as rectification but directed at recalling disclosure, attachment and restraint directions was treated as a review petition in substance and held not maintainable. The Appellate Tribunal relied on the principle that an error requiring reappraisal or a different view on merits is not a patent mistake capable of rectification. The refusal to recall the earlier order was therefore upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
