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 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 97618 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC set aside the appellate authority's rejection of petitioner's appeal on limitation grounds. Despite a 5-day delay in filing the appeal against an order under Section 73(9), the Court found the petitioner, a small businessman, had demonstrated bona fides by making the requisite pre-deposit and seeking condonation of delay due to lack of familiarity with the GST portal. The Court held that the appellate authority erred in its strict interpretation of the condonation provision and directed it to hear and decide the appeal on merits within 8 weeks after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
The HC set aside the appellate authority's rejection of petitioner's appeal on limitation grounds. Despite a 5-day delay in filing the appeal against an order under Section 73(9), the Court found the petitioner, a small businessman, had demonstrated bona fides by making the requisite pre-deposit and seeking condonation of delay due to lack of familiarity with the GST portal. The Court held that the appellate authority erred in its strict interpretation of the condonation provision and directed it to hear and decide the appeal on merits within 8 weeks after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
