Condonation of Delay: directoral disputes and pending company proceedings can constitute reasonable cause, allowing a belated return to be treated as ...
Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Limited scope of processing under section 143(1): enhancement without show cause is unsustainable; remand for residency, taxation and TDS verification...
Departmental monetary thresholds under the National Litigation Policy apply to each appeal separately; the term "case" is to be read as each appeal being an individual case, so values of distinct appeals arising from a composite tribunal order cannot be aggregated to meet the filing limit. The High Court applied the departmental instruction and held that only one appeal (C.E.A.No.18 of 2025) met the prescribed monetary limit; the remaining departmental appeals were held not maintainable and dismissed for failure to satisfy the threshold.
Departmental monetary thresholds under the National Litigation Policy apply to each appeal separately; the term "case" is to be read as each appeal being an individual case, so values of distinct appeals arising from a composite tribunal order cannot be aggregated to meet the filing limit. The High Court applied the departmental instruction and held that only one appeal (C.E.A.No.18 of 2025) met the prescribed monetary limit; the remaining departmental appeals were held not maintainable and dismissed for failure to satisfy the threshold.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.