Tariff classification determines GST schedule and rate; beverages in Schedule III attract the higher rate, tea extracts and syrups in Schedule I attra...
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...
Inordinate delay in filing the first appeal was not condoned because the assessee failed to show sufficient or bona fide cause. The Tribunal found that the explanation of being unaware of the ex parte assessment was unconvincing, noting the failure to file a return even after notice under section 148 and the non-participation in assessment proceedings, which showed negligence and a lackadaisical approach. Applying the principle that sufficient cause does not extend to inaction, negligence or absence of bona fides, it upheld the CIT(A)'s refusal to exercise discretion under section 249(3) and sustained dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.
Inordinate delay in filing the first appeal was not condoned because the assessee failed to show sufficient or bona fide cause. The Tribunal found that the explanation of being unaware of the ex parte assessment was unconvincing, noting the failure to file a return even after notice under section 148 and the non-participation in assessment proceedings, which showed negligence and a lackadaisical approach. Applying the principle that sufficient cause does not extend to inaction, negligence or absence of bona fides, it upheld the CIT(A)'s refusal to exercise discretion under section 249(3) and sustained dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
