Broad aspect: while referring and applying any order of Superior Court, subsequent developments must also be considered by counsels, Courts and Tribunals. Tribunal wrongly applied Supreme Court Order directing Tribunal to refer question of law to High Court. Tribunal did not consider consequent and subsequent development in case of BIJU PATNAIK

Broad aspect: while referring and applying any order of Superior Court, subsequent developments must also be considered by counsels, Courts and Tribunals. Tribunal wrongly applied Supreme Court Order directing Tribunal to refer question of law to High Court. Tribunal did not consider consequent and subsequent development in case of BIJU PATNAIK https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=10501 Tribunals must account for subsequent developments and consequential orders when applying superior court directives. In the Biju Patnaik sequence the Supreme Court directed a reference to the High Court, the High Court required factual inquiry into opportunity for cross examination and remitted the matter for consequential orders; subsequent remand material showed witnesses were unavailable, rendering further re assessment academic. The ITAT Ahmedabad wrongly treated the Supreme Court direction as a substantive holding permitting examination of a creditor's "source of source," and applied amended assessment principles retrospectively without regard to intervening developments. en-us Tue, 05 Jul 2022 10:06:03 +0530 Tue, 05 Jul 2022 10:06:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator Broad aspect: while referring and applying any order of Superior Court, subsequent developments must also be considered by counsels, Courts and Tribunals. Tribunal wrongly applied Supreme Court Order directing Tribunal to refer question of law to High Court. Tribunal did not consider consequent and subsequent development in case of BIJU PATNAIK https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=10501 Tribunals must account for subsequent developments and consequential orders when applying superior court directives. In the Biju Patnaik sequence the Supreme Court directed a reference to the High Court, the High Court required factual inquiry into opportunity for cross examination and remitted the matter for consequential orders; subsequent remand material showed witnesses were unavailable, rendering further re assessment academic. The ITAT Ahmedabad wrongly treated the Supreme Court direction as a substantive holding permitting examination of a creditor's "source of source," and applied amended assessment principles retrospectively without regard to intervening developments. Articles Other Topics Tue, 05 Jul 2022 10:06:03 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=10501