Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The sole issue is whether the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by treating the 10% ceiling in the Third Proviso to Section 19(1) as a mandatory minimum despite finding 'undue hardship' and poor financial condition. The Court held that 'undue hardship' means a burden disproportionate to the requirement; where an NPA-classified appellant lacks liquid assets a multi-crore deposit is prima facie impossible and would render the statutory right of appeal illusory. The Tribunal ought to have imposed alternative conditions (indemnity bonds, corporate guarantees) under the Second Proviso; appeal allowed. - HC
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
