https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449010 HC dismissed the petition, holding the petitioner was not entitled to benefits under the DTVSV Act because no appeal was pending on the statutory cut-off date. Although the Tribunal's formal certified order was delivered later, the petitioner knew of the Tribunal's disposals (Full Bench order and Division Bench order) and therefore could not treat the appeal as pending when filing Forms 1 and 2. The court held delayed service did not revive a concluded appeal, and allowing the application would defeat the statutory scheme; petition dismissed. en-us Tue, 23 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Sep 2025 11:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449010 HC dismissed the petition, holding the petitioner was not entitled to benefits under the DTVSV Act because no appeal was pending on the statutory cut-off date. Although the Tribunal's formal certified order was delivered later, the petitioner knew of the Tribunal's disposals (Full Bench order and Division Bench order) and therefore could not treat the appeal as pending when filing Forms 1 and 2. The court held delayed service did not revive a concluded appeal, and allowing the application would defeat the statutory scheme; petition dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 23 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449010