Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1201 to 1220 of 96333 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 4817 
Join Channel 
