Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
HC upheld that a statutory delay of 652 days in filing an appeal should be condoned and the appellate proceeding before CESTAT restored for adjudication on merits, subject to payment of costs. Although the impugned CESTAT order rejecting condonation was not devoid of legal basis, the Court found prima facie merit in the appellant's contention given a voluntary declaration by the public entity and relevant judicial authorities endorse consideration of merits where sufficient cause is shown. Consequently, the delay is condoned, the appeal is reinstated to its original number for merits determination, and the appellant must meet costs as a precondition to further adjudication.
HC upheld that a statutory delay of 652 days in filing an appeal should be condoned and the appellate proceeding before CESTAT restored for adjudication on merits, subject to payment of costs. Although the impugned CESTAT order rejecting condonation was not devoid of legal basis, the Court found prima facie merit in the appellant's contention given a voluntary declaration by the public entity and relevant judicial authorities endorse consideration of merits where sufficient cause is shown. Consequently, the delay is condoned, the appeal is reinstated to its original number for merits determination, and the appellant must meet costs as a precondition to further adjudication.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
