Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
