Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Data transmission equipment classification under CTSH 8517 62 remains distinct from residual classification, with exemption evidence requiring scrutin...
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.