Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
Embezzlement losses in charitable institutions remain allowable when misappropriation is established, irrecoverable, and not a specified-person benefi...
National long-distance undertaking status supports deduction where separately licensed infrastructure, resources, revenue, and expenditure establish c...
Agency reimbursement income follows contractual deposit-liability computation, while pending deposit collections do not constitute deemed-dividend loa...
Page of 4883
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 97649 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC dismissed the appeal concerning condonation of delay in filing second appeal regarding misdeclaration of imported Brass Ceramic Cartridges. The appellant failed to demonstrate due diligence in verifying the Commissioner (Appeals) order status. Despite proper service of hearing notice to both appellant and counsel, and counsel's attendance at hearing, appellant neglected to provide alternative address for order service. The Department fulfilled procedural obligations by sending order to available address. Court held appellant's inaction and counsel's failure to communicate constituted negligence. The CESTAT's order upholding dismissal was affirmed, as delay in filing was attributable to appellant's lack of vigilance rather than departmental oversight.
HC dismissed the appeal concerning condonation of delay in filing second appeal regarding misdeclaration of imported Brass Ceramic Cartridges. The appellant failed to demonstrate due diligence in verifying the Commissioner (Appeals) order status. Despite proper service of hearing notice to both appellant and counsel, and counsel's attendance at hearing, appellant neglected to provide alternative address for order service. The Department fulfilled procedural obligations by sending order to available address. Court held appellant's inaction and counsel's failure to communicate constituted negligence. The CESTAT's order upholding dismissal was affirmed, as delay in filing was attributable to appellant's lack of vigilance rather than departmental oversight.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4883 
