Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
441 to 460 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT condoned a 110-day delay in filing the first appeal, accepting the assessee's illiteracy, engagement in vegetable vending and unawareness of statutory notices as sufficient cause; it emphasized that substantial justice supersedes technical forfeiture. ITAT held that a forum lacks jurisdiction to decide the merits of an appeal unless the delay is first condoned; a prior refusal to admit time-barred appeal renders any merit adjudication invalid. Consequently, ITAT set aside the impugned order to the extent it addressed merits without jurisdiction, directed the CIT(A) to treat the appeal as duly admitted, and to adjudicate afresh on merits after granting the assessee an opportunity to present submissions.
ITAT condoned a 110-day delay in filing the first appeal, accepting the assessee's illiteracy, engagement in vegetable vending and unawareness of statutory notices as sufficient cause; it emphasized that substantial justice supersedes technical forfeiture. ITAT held that a forum lacks jurisdiction to decide the merits of an appeal unless the delay is first condoned; a prior refusal to admit time-barred appeal renders any merit adjudication invalid. Consequently, ITAT set aside the impugned order to the extent it addressed merits without jurisdiction, directed the CIT(A) to treat the appeal as duly admitted, and to adjudicate afresh on merits after granting the assessee an opportunity to present submissions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.