Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
A liberal approach governs condonation where refusal would defeat substantial justice, and the death of the authorised representative handling the assessee's tax matters in the faceless regime constituted sufficient cause for the 430-day delay. The Court also held that a jurisdictional objection that reassessment may be void for want of approval under law cannot be excluded by a rigid or hyper-technical limitation analysis. By refusing condonation solely for lack of documentary support and not addressing the pleaded defect, the Tribunal misdirected itself. The delay was condoned, the limitation dismissal was set aside, and the appeal was remanded for fresh adjudication, with the Section 151 validity issue to be decided as a preliminary issue.
A liberal approach governs condonation where refusal would defeat substantial justice, and the death of the authorised representative handling the assessee's tax matters in the faceless regime constituted sufficient cause for the 430-day delay. The Court also held that a jurisdictional objection that reassessment may be void for want of approval under law cannot be excluded by a rigid or hyper-technical limitation analysis. By refusing condonation solely for lack of documentary support and not addressing the pleaded defect, the Tribunal misdirected itself. The delay was condoned, the limitation dismissal was set aside, and the appeal was remanded for fresh adjudication, with the Section 151 validity issue to be decided as a preliminary issue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.