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...
A pending appeal abated because the appellant company had been ordered into liquidation and no application for continuance was filed by the official liquidator under Rule 22 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules. The Tribunal applied Rule 22, which bars continuation of an appeal by a wound-up company unless the liquidator seeks to carry it on, and relied on Ghanshyam Mishra to confirm that the proceedings did not survive. The miscellaneous application was disposed of, and the delay in filing it was condoned.
A pending appeal abated because the appellant company had been ordered into liquidation and no application for continuance was filed by the official liquidator under Rule 22 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules. The Tribunal applied Rule 22, which bars continuation of an appeal by a wound-up company unless the liquidator seeks to carry it on, and relied on Ghanshyam Mishra to confirm that the proceedings did not survive. The miscellaneous application was disposed of, and the delay in filing it was condoned.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
