Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT dismissed the restoration of appeal application filed by the appellant following non-appearance despite multiple hearing opportunities. The appellant's appeal was originally dismissed for want of prosecution after failing to appear for seven scheduled hearings. While the appellant submitted medical certificate citing Lumbar Spondylitis requiring three months bed rest from June 2024, CESTAT noted the medical restriction ended before several hearing dates in October-November 2024. The tribunal held that restoration of appeal is not a matter of right and is permitted only in exceptional cases with valid justification. Despite the Supreme Court precedent in CIT vs Chennappa Mudaliar requiring tribunals to decide appeals on merits rather than dismissing for non-appearance, CESTAT found the appellant failed to provide adequate reasons for consistent non-appearance and exercised its powers under Rule 21 of CESTAT Procedure Rules 1982 to pass final ex-parte order dismissing the restoration application.
CESTAT dismissed the restoration of appeal application filed by the appellant following non-appearance despite multiple hearing opportunities. The appellant's appeal was originally dismissed for want of prosecution after failing to appear for seven scheduled hearings. While the appellant submitted medical certificate citing Lumbar Spondylitis requiring three months bed rest from June 2024, CESTAT noted the medical restriction ended before several hearing dates in October-November 2024. The tribunal held that restoration of appeal is not a matter of right and is permitted only in exceptional cases with valid justification. Despite the Supreme Court precedent in CIT vs Chennappa Mudaliar requiring tribunals to decide appeals on merits rather than dismissing for non-appearance, CESTAT found the appellant failed to provide adequate reasons for consistent non-appearance and exercised its powers under Rule 21 of CESTAT Procedure Rules 1982 to pass final ex-parte order dismissing the restoration application.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
