Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The CESTAT, an Appellate Tribunal, dismissed an appeal due to abatement caused by non-prosecution of the case. The Tribunal held that adjourning a matter beyond three times, as seen in a Supreme Court case, is unjustified. The Supreme Court condemned the practice of mechanical adjournments. In this case, despite multiple adjournments and warnings, the appellant did not avail of the opportunities granted. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, in line with Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.
The CESTAT, an Appellate Tribunal, dismissed an appeal due to abatement caused by non-prosecution of the case. The Tribunal held that adjourning a matter beyond three times, as seen in a Supreme Court case, is unjustified. The Supreme Court condemned the practice of mechanical adjournments. In this case, despite multiple adjournments and warnings, the appellant did not avail of the opportunities granted. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, in line with Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
