Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Delay of 1154 days in filing appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not condoned as reasons given, such as leaving income tax matters in hands of Chartered Accountant, ignorance of law, and being busy with agricultural and household activities, did not constitute "sufficient cause" u/s 249(3). Appellant remained inactive and grossly negligent after receiving assessment order, lacking due diligence. Such casual and lackadaisical approach against assessment order and consequential delay in filing appeal would not constitute "sufficient cause" u/s 249(3). Decision of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) refusing to condone delay upheld.
Delay of 1154 days in filing appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not condoned as reasons given, such as leaving income tax matters in hands of Chartered Accountant, ignorance of law, and being busy with agricultural and household activities, did not constitute "sufficient cause" u/s 249(3). Appellant remained inactive and grossly negligent after receiving assessment order, lacking due diligence. Such casual and lackadaisical approach against assessment order and consequential delay in filing appeal would not constitute "sufficient cause" u/s 249(3). Decision of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) refusing to condone delay upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
