Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
