Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The High Court refused to condone the delay of 4486 days in filing an appeal against a money recovery decree. The delay was inordinate, and the appellant, a limited company, failed to provide a satisfactory explanation. The professional misconduct of the appellant's erstwhile counsel was not a sufficient justification as the appellant had a duty to remain diligent. The appellant's attempt to claim the benefit u/s 14 of the Limitation Act for the period from 29.11.2019 to 20.09.2024 was rejected due to lack of good faith and due diligence. The appellant had filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC without an ex-parte judgment, prolonging the proceedings for almost five years. The High Court held that by liberal standards, the appellant's actions could not be treated as proceedings pursued in good faith. Consequently, the delay condonation application was dismissed, denying the appellant the benefit u/ss 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act.
The High Court refused to condone the delay of 4486 days in filing an appeal against a money recovery decree. The delay was inordinate, and the appellant, a limited company, failed to provide a satisfactory explanation. The professional misconduct of the appellant's erstwhile counsel was not a sufficient justification as the appellant had a duty to remain diligent. The appellant's attempt to claim the benefit u/s 14 of the Limitation Act for the period from 29.11.2019 to 20.09.2024 was rejected due to lack of good faith and due diligence. The appellant had filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC without an ex-parte judgment, prolonging the proceedings for almost five years. The High Court held that by liberal standards, the appellant's actions could not be treated as proceedings pursued in good faith. Consequently, the delay condonation application was dismissed, denying the appellant the benefit u/ss 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
