Prior Sanction Requirement: absence of prescribed approval invalidates reassessment notice; limitation also bars notice if escaped income below thresh...
Eligibility for exemption depends on strict construction of the product description; reapers without binder are ineligible, but confiscation and penal...
Customs jurisdiction defined for Principal Commissioner, Vishakhapatnam, covering specified ports, districts and India's adjacent EEZ; effective on pu...
Limitation for an appeal under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code runs from the date of pronouncement of the impugned order, not from the date of upload or the appellant's date of knowledge. The tribunal applied the statutory time-bound appellate scheme and held that the order pronounced on 08.12.2025 triggered limitation from that date. It also held that an alleged technical glitch in the e-filing portal could not justify condonation once the appeal was filed beyond the maximum condonable period of thirty days plus fifteen days, because the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain a delayed appeal on equitable or technical grounds. The condonation application and appeal were rejected as time-barred.
Limitation for an appeal under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code runs from the date of pronouncement of the impugned order, not from the date of upload or the appellant's date of knowledge. The tribunal applied the statutory time-bound appellate scheme and held that the order pronounced on 08.12.2025 triggered limitation from that date. It also held that an alleged technical glitch in the e-filing portal could not justify condonation once the appeal was filed beyond the maximum condonable period of thirty days plus fifteen days, because the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain a delayed appeal on equitable or technical grounds. The condonation application and appeal were rejected as time-barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
