Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Service of the Order-in-Original was proved by clear acknowledgement dated 07.02.2023, and the appellant's production of the signed order itself undermined the claim of late receipt. On that factual basis, the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 30.01.2025 was held to be far beyond the normal and statutorily condonable period. Applying Singh Enterprises, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals), as a creature of statute, had no power to condone delay beyond the period expressly permitted by law. The plea on delayed service failed, and the appeal was dismissed as time-barred without examination of the merits.
Service of the Order-in-Original was proved by clear acknowledgement dated 07.02.2023, and the appellant's production of the signed order itself undermined the claim of late receipt. On that factual basis, the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 30.01.2025 was held to be far beyond the normal and statutorily condonable period. Applying Singh Enterprises, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals), as a creature of statute, had no power to condone delay beyond the period expressly permitted by law. The plea on delayed service failed, and the appeal was dismissed as time-barred without examination of the merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.