Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
561 to 580 of 96408 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Delay in filing customs appeals beyond the statutory period of 60 days, plus the further condonable 30 days, cannot be condoned by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal found the explanation for delay factually inadequate because the affidavits lacked specific particulars and dates, and the appellants had not consistently claimed that both partners were outside India. Relying on Singh Enterprises, it held that section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded where the statute fixes the maximum condonable period. The appeals were therefore upheld as time-barred, and the Commissioner (Appeals) had no jurisdiction to entertain them.
Delay in filing customs appeals beyond the statutory period of 60 days, plus the further condonable 30 days, cannot be condoned by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal found the explanation for delay factually inadequate because the affidavits lacked specific particulars and dates, and the appellants had not consistently claimed that both partners were outside India. Relying on Singh Enterprises, it held that section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded where the statute fixes the maximum condonable period. The appeals were therefore upheld as time-barred, and the Commissioner (Appeals) had no jurisdiction to entertain them.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
