Co-operative society's mandatory reserve and share capital fixed deposits with banks-interest treated as business income under 80P(2)(a)(iii) deductio...
Income tax reassessment reopening after four years on investigation tip, without s.147 proviso disclosure failure, struck down as borrowed satisfactio...
Recall of ex parte orders requires a showing of sufficient cause for non-appearance, whereas review is confined to an error apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal found no sufficient cause where repeated opportunities had been granted, including a final opportunity after the applicant was already proceeded ex parte, yet the applicant remained absent. Illness and death in one partner's family and lapse of previous counsel were held insufficient, especially when other partners of the firm also gave no explanation. The request to place additional material on record, including a later Supreme Court decision, was not considered because recall itself failed. The recall applications were dismissed.
Recall of ex parte orders requires a showing of sufficient cause for non-appearance, whereas review is confined to an error apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal found no sufficient cause where repeated opportunities had been granted, including a final opportunity after the applicant was already proceeded ex parte, yet the applicant remained absent. Illness and death in one partner's family and lapse of previous counsel were held insufficient, especially when other partners of the firm also gave no explanation. The request to place additional material on record, including a later Supreme Court decision, was not considered because recall itself failed. The recall applications were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
