Delayed judgment pronouncement alone does not invalidate Tribunal orders, while rectification cannot reopen evidence or negate confiscation-related pe...
Agricultural-land reinvestment qualifies when transfer consideration precedes replacement purchase, while unexamined claims may be reassessed on escap...
Bona fide public fixed-deposit explanations prevent concealment penalties where unexplained-credit additions lack independent evidence of undisclosed ...
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 may apply to special-law appeals through Section 29(2) unless the governing enactment excludes it expressly or by necessary implication. A special limitation period alone is insufficient; exclusion may arise from phrases such as "but not thereafter" or "not exceeding", a defined condonable ceiling, or a self-contained scheme that selectively confers condonation. For appeals under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, the 30-day period and certified-copy exclusion do not bar Section 5 because no outer limit or equivalent restrictive language exists. Delay remains condonable only upon sufficient cause, while applicability before non-court statutory forums depends on the forum and enactment.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 may apply to special-law appeals through Section 29(2) unless the governing enactment excludes it expressly or by necessary implication. A special limitation period alone is insufficient; exclusion may arise from phrases such as "but not thereafter" or "not exceeding", a defined condonable ceiling, or a self-contained scheme that selectively confers condonation. For appeals under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, the 30-day period and certified-copy exclusion do not bar Section 5 because no outer limit or equivalent restrictive language exists. Delay remains condonable only upon sufficient cause, while applicability before non-court statutory forums depends on the forum and enactment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.