Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
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 Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of SVLDRS - The court acknowledged that the petitioner failed to make the balance payment within the extended period due to financial constraints post-COVID-19. However, it emphasized that the petitioner did not provide substantial evidence of severe financial crunch, as claimed. - Citing a precedent set by the Supreme Court, the court affirmed that the time limit cannot be extended by the court as it would amount to modifying the scheme, a prerogative of the government or the respondent authority. The extension granted during the COVID-19 pandemic was within the authority of the government, not the court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
