Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The dominant issue was whether an appeal filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 could be entertained when the delay exceeded the maximum condonable limit (60 days plus a further 30 days). The tribunal held that the right of appeal is purely statutory and cannot be enlarged on equitable considerations; filing in an incorrect forum or attributing delay to one's own mistake does not confer a right to bypass a clear limitation bar, nor attract exclusion of time under general limitation principles. Consequently, the time-barred appeal was not entertainable and was dismissed. - CESTAT
The dominant issue was whether an appeal filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 could be entertained when the delay exceeded the maximum condonable limit (60 days plus a further 30 days). The tribunal held that the right of appeal is purely statutory and cannot be enlarged on equitable considerations; filing in an incorrect forum or attributing delay to one's own mistake does not confer a right to bypass a clear limitation bar, nor attract exclusion of time under general limitation principles. Consequently, the time-barred appeal was not entertainable and was dismissed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
