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...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
