Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
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.