Unlawful outward remittances via Hawala using proforma invoices and electronic records proved; documents admitted, directors penalised, penalties redu...
Attachment of equivalent-value properties as proceeds of crime upheld; preventive attachment order and confirmation sustained; no independent ED reinv...
Broker trading-system "technical glitch" redefinition and narrowed incident-reporting regime for large IBT/STWT brokers requiring 2-hr notice and 14-w...
Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to a patent, obvious error apparent from the record and cannot be used to reargue debatable issues, reassess evidence, or reopen the merits of an earlier time-bar dismissal. The High Court held that complaints about the Tribunal's failure to summon further material, its treatment of the driver's affidavit on delay condonation, and alleged non-consideration of precedent involved adjudicatory choice rather than self-evident error, so no rectifiable mistake was shown. In the section 260A appeal, interference was unavailable absent perversity or a substantial question of law. The appeals were dismissed.
Rectification under section 254(2) is confined to a patent, obvious error apparent from the record and cannot be used to reargue debatable issues, reassess evidence, or reopen the merits of an earlier time-bar dismissal. The High Court held that complaints about the Tribunal's failure to summon further material, its treatment of the driver's affidavit on delay condonation, and alleged non-consideration of precedent involved adjudicatory choice rather than self-evident error, so no rectifiable mistake was shown. In the section 260A appeal, interference was unavailable absent perversity or a substantial question of law. The appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
