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...
Review jurisdiction was exercised to reopen earlier Tribunal orders because the Supreme Court's three-Judge Bench order recalling Ganpati Dealcom and granting liberty to seek review was treated as binding. The Tribunal held it had no competence to disregard that order or treat it as per incuriam, and a contrary Gauhati High Court view could not override binding Supreme Court precedent. On the Tribunal's earlier reasoning regarding review and delay, the review petitions were entertained, the delay in filing was condoned, and the matters were reopened.
Review jurisdiction was exercised to reopen earlier Tribunal orders because the Supreme Court's three-Judge Bench order recalling Ganpati Dealcom and granting liberty to seek review was treated as binding. The Tribunal held it had no competence to disregard that order or treat it as per incuriam, and a contrary Gauhati High Court view could not override binding Supreme Court precedent. On the Tribunal's earlier reasoning regarding review and delay, the review petitions were entertained, the delay in filing was condoned, and the matters were reopened.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
