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...
ITAT dismissed the assessee's appeal as time-barred, refusing to condone an inordinate delay of 562 days in filing. The assessee's explanation that the delay was due to a period of custody was rejected, as custody ended long before the impugned CIT(A) order and the filing of appeal, and multiple hearing notices were duly issued to the assessee and its authorised representative. ITAT held that no sufficient cause was shown for condonation under settled law. Though the Tribunal noted that the penalty notices under s. 271(1)(c) were defective for not specifying a clear charge, the appeal itself was not entertained on account of the unexplained delay.
ITAT dismissed the assessee's appeal as time-barred, refusing to condone an inordinate delay of 562 days in filing. The assessee's explanation that the delay was due to a period of custody was rejected, as custody ended long before the impugned CIT(A) order and the filing of appeal, and multiple hearing notices were duly issued to the assessee and its authorised representative. ITAT held that no sufficient cause was shown for condonation under settled law. Though the Tribunal noted that the penalty notices under s. 271(1)(c) were defective for not specifying a clear charge, the appeal itself was not entertained on account of the unexplained delay.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.