Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Employee conflict disclosures and investment restrictions expand with new recusal duties, post-employment limits, and compliance reporting requirement...
Insolvency and BankruptcyAugust 10, 2024Case LawsAT
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal was denied as the appellant failed to fulfill the prerequisites for invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The court held that the appellant was guilty of negligence, lapse, or inaction, and there was no jurisdictional defect or similar cause for the failure of the prior proceeding. The judgment in State Bank of India vs. Visa Steel Ltd. regarding excluding time spent in prosecuting legal remedies while computing limitation u/s 61(2) was distinguished as inapplicable to the present case. Consequently, the period from 08.06.2023 to 03.01.2024 could not be excluded, resulting in a delay of 209 days, exceeding the condonable period of 15 days. The appeal was dismissed due to the inordinate delay.
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal was denied as the appellant failed to fulfill the prerequisites for invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The court held that the appellant was guilty of negligence, lapse, or inaction, and there was no jurisdictional defect or similar cause for the failure of the prior proceeding. The judgment in State Bank of India vs. Visa Steel Ltd. regarding excluding time spent in prosecuting legal remedies while computing limitation u/s 61(2) was distinguished as inapplicable to the present case. Consequently, the period from 08.06.2023 to 03.01.2024 could not be excluded, resulting in a delay of 209 days, exceeding the condonable period of 15 days. The appeal was dismissed due to the inordinate delay.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
