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" ?
Non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under section 107(6) was treated as a curable procedural defect where the taxpayer had deposited the amount in the electronic cash ledger and shown an intention to comply. The High Court held that the appeal was dismissed solely for alleged non-compliance, not on merits, and that natural justice required the Appellate Authority to point out the defect and allow reasonable time to cure it before rejecting the appeal. The order was quashed and the matter remanded for consideration on merits after the pre-deposit issue is rectified.
Non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under section 107(6) was treated as a curable procedural defect where the taxpayer had deposited the amount in the electronic cash ledger and shown an intention to comply. The High Court held that the appeal was dismissed solely for alleged non-compliance, not on merits, and that natural justice required the Appellate Authority to point out the defect and allow reasonable time to cure it before rejecting the appeal. The order was quashed and the matter remanded for consideration on merits after the pre-deposit issue is rectified.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
