Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
The Appellate Tribunal held that the limitation period for filing the appeal commenced on the date the impugned order was pronounced, with a 30-day limitation period and an additional 15-day extension under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appellant's delay of 117 days far exceeded the permissible period, and the Tribunal found the appellant's conduct reckless and lacking bona fides or due diligence. Consequently, the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of condonation under Section 14. Furthermore, relying on binding precedent, the Tribunal reaffirmed its lack of jurisdiction to condone delay beyond 15 days. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed for being barred by limitation.
The Appellate Tribunal held that the limitation period for filing the appeal commenced on the date the impugned order was pronounced, with a 30-day limitation period and an additional 15-day extension under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appellant's delay of 117 days far exceeded the permissible period, and the Tribunal found the appellant's conduct reckless and lacking bona fides or due diligence. Consequently, the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of condonation under Section 14. Furthermore, relying on binding precedent, the Tribunal reaffirmed its lack of jurisdiction to condone delay beyond 15 days. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed for being barred by limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
