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...
Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96587 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 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 4830 
Join Channel 
