Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
Embezzlement losses in charitable institutions remain allowable when misappropriation is established, irrecoverable, and not a specified-person benefi...
National long-distance undertaking status supports deduction where separately licensed infrastructure, resources, revenue, and expenditure establish c...
Agency reimbursement income follows contractual deposit-liability computation, while pending deposit collections do not constitute deemed-dividend loa...
Page of 4883
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 97649 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT condoned a delay of 2066 days in filing the appeal, attributing the delay to the assessee's CA's inaction and ongoing FIRs causing a deadlock. The tribunal held that the impugned order was not decided on merits. Consequently, the delay before the CIT(A) was condoned on sufficient cause grounds, but a cost of Rs. 2,500 was imposed on the assessee for lack of vigilance. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee a full opportunity of hearing and to pass a reasoned, speaking order after the payment of the imposed cost to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund, with proof of payment to be submitted.
The ITAT condoned a delay of 2066 days in filing the appeal, attributing the delay to the assessee's CA's inaction and ongoing FIRs causing a deadlock. The tribunal held that the impugned order was not decided on merits. Consequently, the delay before the CIT(A) was condoned on sufficient cause grounds, but a cost of Rs. 2,500 was imposed on the assessee for lack of vigilance. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee a full opportunity of hearing and to pass a reasoned, speaking order after the payment of the imposed cost to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund, with proof of payment to be submitted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.