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...
Appellant's appeal before ITAT is dismissed for non-admission due to inordinate delay of 2,121 days; condonation of delay is refused for want of "sufficient cause" and bona fides. Tribunal found the appeal was prosecuted to exploit process of law after multiple earlier adjudications (AO, CIT(A), Coordinate Bench) concerning alleged bogus purchases where AO had made limited additions and earlier appellate fora rejected genuineness/identity. The Tribunal held equitable pleas of liberal or justice-oriented approach cannot override statutory limitation; public-policy underpinning of limitation bars revival of stale matters. Consequently, appeal is rejected purely on limitation grounds and is not admitted for adjudication.
Appellant's appeal before ITAT is dismissed for non-admission due to inordinate delay of 2,121 days; condonation of delay is refused for want of "sufficient cause" and bona fides. Tribunal found the appeal was prosecuted to exploit process of law after multiple earlier adjudications (AO, CIT(A), Coordinate Bench) concerning alleged bogus purchases where AO had made limited additions and earlier appellate fora rejected genuineness/identity. The Tribunal held equitable pleas of liberal or justice-oriented approach cannot override statutory limitation; public-policy underpinning of limitation bars revival of stale matters. Consequently, appeal is rejected purely on limitation grounds and is not admitted for adjudication.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.