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...
The HC allowed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging dismissal of an appeal on limitation grounds. The petitioner-assessee filed an appeal on 01.07.2024 against an order communicated on 01.04.2024. The Appellate Authority erroneously dismissed the appeal as time-barred, holding the two-month limitation period expired on 31.05.2024 and extended period on 30.06.2024. The HC held that under Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, the communication date 01.04.2024 must be excluded from limitation calculation, making the appeal timely filed within the extended three-month period under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act. Despite availability of statutory appeal remedy to CESTAT under Section 86, the HC entertained the writ petition as it involved a pure question of law without disputed facts. The impugned dismissal order was quashed.
The HC allowed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging dismissal of an appeal on limitation grounds. The petitioner-assessee filed an appeal on 01.07.2024 against an order communicated on 01.04.2024. The Appellate Authority erroneously dismissed the appeal as time-barred, holding the two-month limitation period expired on 31.05.2024 and extended period on 30.06.2024. The HC held that under Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, the communication date 01.04.2024 must be excluded from limitation calculation, making the appeal timely filed within the extended three-month period under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act. Despite availability of statutory appeal remedy to CESTAT under Section 86, the HC entertained the writ petition as it involved a pure question of law without disputed facts. The impugned dismissal order was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
