TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Validity of tax deduction orders for non-resident deductees and limitation: relief denied after inordinate delay and lack of merit</h1> Validity of tax deduction orders under limitation rules for non-resident deductees is examined with emphasis on the absence of a prescribed statutory time ... Validity of orders passed u/s.201 as barred by limitation - time limits prescribed in case where deductee is a non-resident - “reasonable time limit” when no time limit has been prescribed by the Parliament in case of non-residents? HC [2024 (4) TMI 1367 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] answered substantial questions of law in favour of the Assessee. HELD THAT:- There is an inordinate delay of 512 days in filing the special leave petition for which no sufficient cause has been shown Even otherwise we do not see any merit in this special leave petition. Hence, the special leave petition is dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merit. Issues: (i) Whether the Special Leave Petition is liable to be dismissed for inordinate delay of 512 days in filing without sufficient cause; (ii) Whether the Special Leave Petition merits interference on merits.Issue (i): Whether the SLP is barred by inordinate delay lacking sufficient cause.Analysis: The Court examined the period of delay and the absence of sufficient cause and recorded that the delay of 512 days was inordinate and no adequate explanation was furnished to justify condonation of delay.Conclusion: The SLP is dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and lack of sufficient cause; decision is in favour of the Assessee.Issue (ii): Whether the SLP is maintainable on merits and warrants interference.Analysis: The Court considered the merits of the petition and found no substance warranting interference with the impugned order.Conclusion: The SLP is dismissed on merits; decision is in favour of the Assessee.Final Conclusion: The Special Leave Petition is dismissed both on the ground of delay and on merits; pending applications, if any, are disposed of.Ratio Decidendi: A Special Leave Petition with an inordinate unexplained delay may be dismissed for want of sufficient cause, and where no substantive merit is shown, interference is refused.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
