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...
In the ITAT Surat case, the appeal was delayed by 506 days. The issue was whether there was a "sufficient cause" for the delay, as claimed due to the receiver not opening the email with the order. The Chartered Accountant found the rejection while checking the ITBA portal. The Tribunal held that the delay was inexcusable as the assessee showed negligence and lack of diligence. The casual approach towards registration rejection did not constitute "sufficient cause" u/s 253(5) of the Act. The delay was not condoned, making it unnecessary to discuss the case's merits.
In the ITAT Surat case, the appeal was delayed by 506 days. The issue was whether there was a "sufficient cause" for the delay, as claimed due to the receiver not opening the email with the order. The Chartered Accountant found the rejection while checking the ITBA portal. The Tribunal held that the delay was inexcusable as the assessee showed negligence and lack of diligence. The casual approach towards registration rejection did not constitute "sufficient cause" u/s 253(5) of the Act. The delay was not condoned, making it unnecessary to discuss the case's merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
