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...
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with the statutory requirement of making the pre-deposit. After an amendment on August 6, 2014, neither the Tribunal nor the Commissioner (Appeals) had the power to waive the pre-deposit requirement u/s 35F of the Central Excise Act. The Supreme Court's decision in Narayan Chandra Ghosh vs. UCO Bank emphasized that when a statute confers the right to appeal, conditions can be imposed, and unless the condition precedent of filing an appeal is fulfilled, the appeal cannot be entertained. Since the appellant failed to make the required pre-deposit, the Tribunal could not permit the maintenance of the appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with the statutory requirement of making the pre-deposit. After an amendment on August 6, 2014, neither the Tribunal nor the Commissioner (Appeals) had the power to waive the pre-deposit requirement u/s 35F of the Central Excise Act. The Supreme Court's decision in Narayan Chandra Ghosh vs. UCO Bank emphasized that when a statute confers the right to appeal, conditions can be imposed, and unless the condition precedent of filing an appeal is fulfilled, the appeal cannot be entertained. Since the appellant failed to make the required pre-deposit, the Tribunal could not permit the maintenance of the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
