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...
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 4814 
Join Channel 
