Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
The assessee delayed filing an appeal against an order dismissing their appeal contesting the assessment u/s 143(3), resulting in a 346-day delay. The ITAT held that there was no explanation for the initial 90-day delay, even after the assessee became aware of the delay on 28.10.2022. The assessee's affidavits dated 24.01.2023 and 18.04.2024 contradicted the Revenue's report regarding the date of knowledge of the assessment. The assessee's revised affidavit claiming knowledge on 24/11/2022 based on penalty orders u/ss 270A/271AAC was incomprehensible and reprehensible. The ITAT condemned the assessee's second affidavit, which appeared to be filed surreptitiously without bringing the changed date to the ITAT's notice, as clearly false and an attempt to mislead the court. The ITAT allowed the assessee time to produce evidence and cross-examine the deponent, but no material or deposition was advanced. With the affidavits being found false and no reasonable cause for the delay, the ITAT dismissed the assessee's appeal.
The assessee delayed filing an appeal against an order dismissing their appeal contesting the assessment u/s 143(3), resulting in a 346-day delay. The ITAT held that there was no explanation for the initial 90-day delay, even after the assessee became aware of the delay on 28.10.2022. The assessee's affidavits dated 24.01.2023 and 18.04.2024 contradicted the Revenue's report regarding the date of knowledge of the assessment. The assessee's revised affidavit claiming knowledge on 24/11/2022 based on penalty orders u/ss 270A/271AAC was incomprehensible and reprehensible. The ITAT condemned the assessee's second affidavit, which appeared to be filed surreptitiously without bringing the changed date to the ITAT's notice, as clearly false and an attempt to mislead the court. The ITAT allowed the assessee time to produce evidence and cross-examine the deponent, but no material or deposition was advanced. With the affidavits being found false and no reasonable cause for the delay, the ITAT dismissed the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
