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...
The dominant issue was whether the statutory appeal was filed within the limitation period prescribed under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, and within the further condonable period available to the appellate authority. The tribunal held that the appellant admittedly became aware of the order on 16.08.2021, yet filed the appeal well beyond the maximum period that could be condoned, and the Commissioner (Appeals) therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain it, consistent with the principle that delay beyond the statutorily condonable limit cannot be excused. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as time-barred. - CESTAT
The dominant issue was whether the statutory appeal was filed within the limitation period prescribed under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, and within the further condonable period available to the appellate authority. The tribunal held that the appellant admittedly became aware of the order on 16.08.2021, yet filed the appeal well beyond the maximum period that could be condoned, and the Commissioner (Appeals) therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain it, consistent with the principle that delay beyond the statutorily condonable limit cannot be excused. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as time-barred. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
