Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 96136 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 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
