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...
The CESTAT dismissed the appellant's appeal as time-barred, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) order rejecting the appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Order-in-Original was received by the appellant on 16.12.2021; the statutory window for appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) expired after 60 days with an additional discretionary 30 days. The appeal was filed on 05.09.2022, well beyond the prescribed period. Applying authoritative precedent that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded in this context, the tribunal held there is no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the prescribed extension. Consequently, no infirmity was found in the impugned order and the appeal was dismissed.
The CESTAT dismissed the appellant's appeal as time-barred, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) order rejecting the appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Order-in-Original was received by the appellant on 16.12.2021; the statutory window for appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) expired after 60 days with an additional discretionary 30 days. The appeal was filed on 05.09.2022, well beyond the prescribed period. Applying authoritative precedent that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded in this context, the tribunal held there is no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the prescribed extension. Consequently, no infirmity was found in the impugned order and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
