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...
CESTAT affirmed dismissal of the appeals for want of limitation, holding that the appeals were lodged beyond the statutory period for filing appeals from Orders-in-Original and beyond the single-month condonation power vested in the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal found no jurisdictional defect in the Commissioner's limitation ruling and rejected appellants' procedural objections to service/receipt as insufficient to extend time. Prior coordinate bench decisions addressing unauthorized receipt or communication failures were considered but distinguished or held inapplicable. Because the appeals were time-barred and no sufficient cause for extension within the statutory proviso was shown, the appeals were dismissed with no adjudication on merits.
CESTAT affirmed dismissal of the appeals for want of limitation, holding that the appeals were lodged beyond the statutory period for filing appeals from Orders-in-Original and beyond the single-month condonation power vested in the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal found no jurisdictional defect in the Commissioner's limitation ruling and rejected appellants' procedural objections to service/receipt as insufficient to extend time. Prior coordinate bench decisions addressing unauthorized receipt or communication failures were considered but distinguished or held inapplicable. Because the appeals were time-barred and no sufficient cause for extension within the statutory proviso was shown, the appeals were dismissed with no adjudication on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.