Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the findings of the Single Judge on the limitation period for a suit. The appellant did not dispute the legal findings that the deposit of TDS triggers a fresh limitation period u/s 19 of the Act of 1963. The appellant raised a factual dispute regarding a transaction reflected in the TDS certificate, claiming it pertained to a separate transaction. The court rejected this claim as it was not raised before the Single Judge. The court held that the Single Judge's conclusion based on the TDS certificate was in line with the evidence and law. The court dismissed the appeal and pending applications, affirming the Single Judge's decision on the limitation issue.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the findings of the Single Judge on the limitation period for a suit. The appellant did not dispute the legal findings that the deposit of TDS triggers a fresh limitation period u/s 19 of the Act of 1963. The appellant raised a factual dispute regarding a transaction reflected in the TDS certificate, claiming it pertained to a separate transaction. The court rejected this claim as it was not raised before the Single Judge. The court held that the Single Judge's conclusion based on the TDS certificate was in line with the evidence and law. The court dismissed the appeal and pending applications, affirming the Single Judge's decision on the limitation issue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
