Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
ITAT upholds CIT(A)'s dismissal of the second appeal, concluding the taxpayer is barred from a separate appellate remedy against the same assessment order. The taxpayer's challenge to an addition under s.2(22)(e) as causing double taxation was not entertained because the first appeal against the assessment had been adjudicated on merits, precluding re-litigation by a subsequent appeal. The application for revision/rectification under s.264 filed after more than four years was time-barred and the PCIT's refusal to condone delay was not challenged. The Tribunal found the judicial authority relied upon inapposite where first appeals were dismissed on technical grounds, and accordingly dismissed the taxpayer's second appeal.
ITAT upholds CIT(A)'s dismissal of the second appeal, concluding the taxpayer is barred from a separate appellate remedy against the same assessment order. The taxpayer's challenge to an addition under s.2(22)(e) as causing double taxation was not entertained because the first appeal against the assessment had been adjudicated on merits, precluding re-litigation by a subsequent appeal. The application for revision/rectification under s.264 filed after more than four years was time-barred and the PCIT's refusal to condone delay was not challenged. The Tribunal found the judicial authority relied upon inapposite where first appeals were dismissed on technical grounds, and accordingly dismissed the taxpayer's second appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
