Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1541 to 1560 of 96408 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Appealable order - Whether the communication would be considered as an ‘order’ for filing of appeal before the Tribunal - The Tribunal determined that the communication from the Superintendent was not a decision but merely conveyed the date fixed by the Commissioner. However, the Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant had a right to know why their request for cross-examination was denied, which was not clearly stated in the communication. Citing precedent, the Tribunal held that such communications could be considered as appealable orders, especially when the decision on cross-examination was neither accepted nor denied by the Commissioner. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant correctly filed the appeal before them.
Appealable order - Whether the communication would be considered as an ‘order’ for filing of appeal before the Tribunal - The Tribunal determined that the communication from the Superintendent was not a decision but merely conveyed the date fixed by the Commissioner. However, the Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant had a right to know why their request for cross-examination was denied, which was not clearly stated in the communication. Citing precedent, the Tribunal held that such communications could be considered as appealable orders, especially when the decision on cross-examination was neither accepted nor denied by the Commissioner. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant correctly filed the appeal before them.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
