Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2161 to 2180 of 96140 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case involves timeliness of appeal filed u/s 85(3A) of Finance Act, 1994 before Commissioner (Appeals-II) and refund claim. The Appellate Tribunal found that the appellant had submitted appeal papers to Sevottam section, but factual position on receipt was unclear. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not examine merits, solely citing delay. Considering the acknowledgment of receipt, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, condoning the delay and remanding for detailed examination on merits. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision by the Commissioner (Appeals-II).
The case involves timeliness of appeal filed u/s 85(3A) of Finance Act, 1994 before Commissioner (Appeals-II) and refund claim. The Appellate Tribunal found that the appellant had submitted appeal papers to Sevottam section, but factual position on receipt was unclear. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not examine merits, solely citing delay. Considering the acknowledgment of receipt, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, condoning the delay and remanding for detailed examination on merits. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision by the Commissioner (Appeals-II).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
