NPCI-based bank account validation for IEC applications and modifications enables real-time validation; incorrect details block submission or trigger ...
Creation/Invocation of pledge of securities through depository system: standardized pledge forms, notice requirement and invocation notifications to p...
Calendar Spread margin benefit for Single Stock Derivatives suspended on expiry day for expiring contracts; exchanges must implement systems and rule ...
Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
The dominant issue was whether a 2262-day delay in filing a statutory appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Applying the liberal construction of "sufficient cause" to advance substantial justice, the court held that the tribunal erred in treating the appellant's inaction as "total negligence," particularly given the SC's directions excluding 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for limitation due to COVID-19 and the impracticality of expecting daily portal monitoring. Since refusal would effectively bar scrutiny of a substantial penalty on merits, the delay was condoned and the question of law was answered in the appellant's favour. - HC
The dominant issue was whether a 2262-day delay in filing a statutory appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Applying the liberal construction of "sufficient cause" to advance substantial justice, the court held that the tribunal erred in treating the appellant's inaction as "total negligence," particularly given the SC's directions excluding 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for limitation due to COVID-19 and the impracticality of expecting daily portal monitoring. Since refusal would effectively bar scrutiny of a substantial penalty on merits, the delay was condoned and the question of law was answered in the appellant's favour. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
