Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1501 to 1520 of 96363 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 4819 
Join Channel 
