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 High Court considered a Revision u/s 264 where the CIT rejected the application due to delay, stating u/s 143(1) intimation was not revisable. The court declined to condone the delay, noting the tax department's inability to reassess due to limitation provisions. The appellant had initially declared profits as capital gains for certain years, benefiting from lower tax rates. The revenue's change in treating the profits as business income led to the revision petitions. The court found the delay unjustifiable, as the appellant waited until after the Appellate Authority's decision to file the revision petitions. Condoning the delay would unfairly advantage the appellant over the revenue. The Writ Appeal was dismissed in line with the Single Judge's decision.
The High Court considered a Revision u/s 264 where the CIT rejected the application due to delay, stating u/s 143(1) intimation was not revisable. The court declined to condone the delay, noting the tax department's inability to reassess due to limitation provisions. The appellant had initially declared profits as capital gains for certain years, benefiting from lower tax rates. The revenue's change in treating the profits as business income led to the revision petitions. The court found the delay unjustifiable, as the appellant waited until after the Appellate Authority's decision to file the revision petitions. Condoning the delay would unfairly advantage the appellant over the revenue. The Writ Appeal was dismissed in line with the Single Judge's decision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
