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...
The High Court set aside the order of the appellate authority rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay beyond the prescribed period. Despite the petitioner's representative's medical condition and reasons preventing timely filing, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal citing no scope for admission beyond four months from the order date. However, the court held this contrary to its earlier directive applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, allowing condonation of delay beyond one month from the prescribed period. Considering the petitioner's bona fides, the substantial recovery already made, and the established principle of not gaining by filing a belated appeal, the court found the rejection unsustainable and disposed of the petition.
The High Court set aside the order of the appellate authority rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay beyond the prescribed period. Despite the petitioner's representative's medical condition and reasons preventing timely filing, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal citing no scope for admission beyond four months from the order date. However, the court held this contrary to its earlier directive applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, allowing condonation of delay beyond one month from the prescribed period. Considering the petitioner's bona fides, the substantial recovery already made, and the established principle of not gaining by filing a belated appeal, the court found the rejection unsustainable and disposed of the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.