Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
741 to 760 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Refusal to condone delay in filing the appeal against an intimation under Section 143(1) was upheld because the assessee had knowledge of the outstanding demand from the refund-adjustment communication and had even sought revision against that demand; the appellate authorities' concurrent factual findings that the appeal was time-barred and the delay remained unexplained showed no perversity or legal infirmity, so no substantial question of law arose under Section 260A. The assessee's claim for exemption of long-term capital gains on sale of shares was not examined on merits because the appellate remedy itself had failed on limitation. The rectification grievance was treated as an independent statutory remedy and left open.
Refusal to condone delay in filing the appeal against an intimation under Section 143(1) was upheld because the assessee had knowledge of the outstanding demand from the refund-adjustment communication and had even sought revision against that demand; the appellate authorities' concurrent factual findings that the appeal was time-barred and the delay remained unexplained showed no perversity or legal infirmity, so no substantial question of law arose under Section 260A. The assessee's claim for exemption of long-term capital gains on sale of shares was not examined on merits because the appellate remedy itself had failed on limitation. The rectification grievance was treated as an independent statutory remedy and left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
