Fair market value under section 50C must reflect existing property condition, not hypothetical development, and statutory valuation steps must be foll...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2021 to 2040 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The order dismissing the appeal due to non-payment of the mandatory pre-deposit amount u/s 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was challenged. The court relied on a previous judgment where it was held that there was no intent to avoid payment of the pre-deposit, and the Revenue Board had provided a facility for making such pre-deposits. Consequently, the court quashed the appellate order and revived the appeal, subject to the petitioner depositing the pre-deposit amount within two weeks, as per their undertaking.
The order dismissing the appeal due to non-payment of the mandatory pre-deposit amount u/s 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was challenged. The court relied on a previous judgment where it was held that there was no intent to avoid payment of the pre-deposit, and the Revenue Board had provided a facility for making such pre-deposits. Consequently, the court quashed the appellate order and revived the appeal, subject to the petitioner depositing the pre-deposit amount within two weeks, as per their undertaking.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
