Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The AAAR dismissed the appeal due to late filing beyond the statutorily prescribed time limits under Section 100(2) of CGST Act, 2017. The Authority clarified that while it has discretionary power to condone delays, this power is strictly limited to an additional 30 days beyond the initial 30-day filing period. The appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, with their first communication occurring on 17.10.2024, well after both the original deadline (30.08.2024) and the condonable period (29.09.2024) had expired. The AAAR emphasized that ignorance of filing procedures cannot excuse non-compliance, and the discretionary power to condone delays is not obligatory but contingent upon showing sufficient cause within statutory timeframes.
The AAAR dismissed the appeal due to late filing beyond the statutorily prescribed time limits under Section 100(2) of CGST Act, 2017. The Authority clarified that while it has discretionary power to condone delays, this power is strictly limited to an additional 30 days beyond the initial 30-day filing period. The appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, with their first communication occurring on 17.10.2024, well after both the original deadline (30.08.2024) and the condonable period (29.09.2024) had expired. The AAAR emphasized that ignorance of filing procedures cannot excuse non-compliance, and the discretionary power to condone delays is not obligatory but contingent upon showing sufficient cause within statutory timeframes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.