Rectification u/s 254 - non consideration of the Judgment of the ...

Tribunal Exceeded Authority by Allowing Miscellaneous Application Beyond Section 254(2) Without Bombay High Court Judgment Consideration.

April 10, 2021

Case Laws Income Tax HC

Rectification u/s 254 - non consideration of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court - When the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the order passed by them, the remedy open to the assessee is to file an appeal against the order, if they are aggrieved over the same. The order passed by the Tribunal is beyond the scope of section 254(2). In these circumstances, the Tribunal should not have allowed the Miscellaneous Application. - HC

View Source

← Previous Next →

Rectification u/s 254 - non consideration of the Judgment of the ...

Tribunal Exceeded Authority by Allowing Miscellaneous Application Beyond Section 254(2) Without Bombay High Court Judgment Consideration.

April 10, 2021

Case Laws Income Tax HC

You may also like:

Assessee filed second rectification application u/s 254, raising same grounds as first miscellaneous application which was already rejected. Tribunal held that except...

Rejection of an application filed u/s 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) by the Appellant, where the State Bank of India (SBI) had initiated proceedings u/s...

Miscellaneous application maintainability as filed beyond the limitation period as provided u/s 254(2) - where there is no provision for condonation of delay for filing...

The Appellate Tribunal considered whether the assessee, a trust registered u/s 12AA, qualified for exemption u/s 11 as a charitable entity. The AO argued the trust's...

Rectification of mistake - when there is no provision for condonation of delay for filing of the miscellaneous application, then the miscellaneous application filed...

Condonation of delay - Application for rectification of mistake - when there is no provision of condonation of delay for filing of the Miscellaneous Application then the...

The court held that Section 6(2)(b) of the Act treats the empowered officers under the SGST/UGST Act at the central level to be at par and does not prescribe for...

The appeal challenges the admission of an unstamped Assignment Agreement dated 29.03.2022 under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. The court held that the Assignment...

Rectification u/s 254(2) - one of ground was not disposed - since the appeal against the order of the Tribunal has already been admitted and a substantial question of...

The High Court held that the Central Board of Direct Tax's Compounding Guidelines dated 16 September 2022, which rejected the application for compounding u/s 279(2) on...

The Appellate Tribunal addressed the rejection of registration application u/s 12A/12AB due to a clerical error in selecting the appropriate section in the e-filing...

The High Court examined the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) and the prescribed income-tax authority to issue notices u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. It held...

The case involves the interpretation of u/s 55(2)(b)(i) and u/s 55(2)(aa)(B)(iiia) of the Income Tax Act regarding the cost of acquisition of bonus shares. The Tribunal...

Gross violation of CBEC instructions and the precedential value of CESTAT decisions. The Revenue filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority without specifying...

Deduction u/s 80P2(a)(i) - Interest on fixed deposits - The Appellate Tribunal noted that the deductions available under Section 80P(2)(a) are activity-based, and the...

Quick Updates: