Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
Limitation in customs appeals permits exclusion for bona fide refund proceedings, enabling restoration of Bill of Entry assessment challenges on merit...
Warehousing permission requires deposit at the designated bonded warehouse; unauthorised diversion triggers confiscation, redemption fine and importer...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the order issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act. The court held that the appellant was afforded sufficient opportunity to produce supporting documents, but repeatedly sought adjournments without producing any documents, indicating a delay tactic. The notices issued u/s 250 satisfied the statutory requirements, explicitly conveying the purpose of the hearing. The appellant's contention of violation of natural justice principles was rejected, as a person who fails to avail the opportunity to make submissions and produce documents cannot complain about such violation. However, the High Court modified the single judge's direction requiring the appellant to remit 20% of the disputed tax as a pre-condition for filing a stay petition before the Appellate Tribunal.
The High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the order issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act. The court held that the appellant was afforded sufficient opportunity to produce supporting documents, but repeatedly sought adjournments without producing any documents, indicating a delay tactic. The notices issued u/s 250 satisfied the statutory requirements, explicitly conveying the purpose of the hearing. The appellant's contention of violation of natural justice principles was rejected, as a person who fails to avail the opportunity to make submissions and produce documents cannot complain about such violation. However, the High Court modified the single judge's direction requiring the appellant to remit 20% of the disputed tax as a pre-condition for filing a stay petition before the Appellate Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
