Belated Form 10B filing during Covid-19 cannot defeat charitable exemption where genuine hardship warrants condonation and substantial justice prevail...
Limitation for consequential assessments runs from prescribed authority receipt, while verified purchases cannot be disallowed merely for unanswered s...
Higher depreciation for qualifying commercial vehicles, exempt-income disallowance, research deduction verification, and club-expense treatment clarif...
Charitable registration renewal cannot become an assessment of receipts, profitability or annual exemption compliance, requiring renewal and donation ...
AMP expenditure for own business is not an international transaction without an associated-enterprise arrangement, eliminating transfer pricing adjust...
Limitation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is strict, time-bound and jurisdictional: an appeal must be filed in defect-free form within the statutory outer limit, and a defective presentation cannot be perfected at leisure. The procedural period for removing defects or seeking condonation of re-filing delay under the Supreme Court Rules cannot override the Code's timeline. Once the outer limit and the defect-cure period are both exhausted, the right of appeal stands extinguished and no condonation survives. The plea for a liberal approach, including the appellant's status as liquidator and reliance on Article 142, was rejected, and sufficient cause was not shown in any event.
Limitation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is strict, time-bound and jurisdictional: an appeal must be filed in defect-free form within the statutory outer limit, and a defective presentation cannot be perfected at leisure. The procedural period for removing defects or seeking condonation of re-filing delay under the Supreme Court Rules cannot override the Code's timeline. Once the outer limit and the defect-cure period are both exhausted, the right of appeal stands extinguished and no condonation survives. The plea for a liberal approach, including the appellant's status as liquidator and reliance on Article 142, was rejected, and sufficient cause was not shown in any event.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.