Genuineness of investment evidence determines LTCG entitlement; non specific regulatory reports cannot displace transaction specific documentary proof...
Page of 4816
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5881 to 5900 of 96301 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4816 
Join Channel 
