Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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.