Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
