Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
