Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
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...
Page of 4784
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95673 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The appeal is dismissed for default under Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The Tribunal found that service by RPAD upon the address furnished in the ST-5 form returned undelivered with an endorsement of "no such person/company," and there is no record of any address update with the Registry. Repeated adjournment requests were declined in light of the appellate court's prohibition of mechanical adjournments and the requirement of cogent substantiation for non-appearance. Having exhausted prescribed methods of service and being unable to ascertain the appellant's whereabouts or intent to prosecute the appeal, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal for default and did not restore the matter.
The appeal is dismissed for default under Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The Tribunal found that service by RPAD upon the address furnished in the ST-5 form returned undelivered with an endorsement of "no such person/company," and there is no record of any address update with the Registry. Repeated adjournment requests were declined in light of the appellate court's prohibition of mechanical adjournments and the requirement of cogent substantiation for non-appearance. Having exhausted prescribed methods of service and being unable to ascertain the appellant's whereabouts or intent to prosecute the appeal, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal for default and did not restore the matter.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
