GST payment representations require record-based, reasoned decisions while substantive entitlement remains open for determination by competent authori...
Reassessment sanction under extended limitation required approval from the competent specified authority, invalidating proceedings approved by an inco...
Internal CUP benchmarking for fixed-rate Masala Bonds prevails over floating external comparables, eliminating the related transfer-pricing adjustment...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
981 to 1000 of 97618 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 112(3) confines the prescribed limitation period to filing an appeal before the Tribunal and does not impose a separate six-month deadline on the Commissioner to review the first appellate order. A departmental appeal filed within the applicable extended filing period therefore remains maintainable even where the Commissioner's review occurred after six months. The maintainability objection was rejected, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits.
Section 112(3) confines the prescribed limitation period to filing an appeal before the Tribunal and does not impose a separate six-month deadline on the Commissioner to review the first appellate order. A departmental appeal filed within the applicable extended filing period therefore remains maintainable even where the Commissioner's review occurred after six months. The maintainability objection was rejected, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
