Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
The HC set aside the impugned order rejecting the appeal as time-barred by 23 days and remitted the matter to the appellate authority for fresh adjudication within a reasonable time. The court found the appellate authority erred in adopting a hyper-technical approach where the appellant, owing to bona fide confusion and portal/upload irregularities (including non-upload of the order summary and issuance of appeal number on physical filing), could not be deemed to have wilfully delayed filing; medical infirmity of the appellant was noted. The HC directed the appellate authority to entertain the appeal in accordance with Rule 108(3) provisos and applicable law and to decide afresh.
The HC set aside the impugned order rejecting the appeal as time-barred by 23 days and remitted the matter to the appellate authority for fresh adjudication within a reasonable time. The court found the appellate authority erred in adopting a hyper-technical approach where the appellant, owing to bona fide confusion and portal/upload irregularities (including non-upload of the order summary and issuance of appeal number on physical filing), could not be deemed to have wilfully delayed filing; medical infirmity of the appellant was noted. The HC directed the appellate authority to entertain the appeal in accordance with Rule 108(3) provisos and applicable law and to decide afresh.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
