https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791073 The purchase order was interpreted as showing that the parallel run period operated concurrently with the ERP implementation period, not as a separate consecutive term. The appellant's own pleading treated the purchase order as lasting 13 months, and the Tribunal found that the basis for seeking permission to travel abroad had expired with that work period. The appeal could not be used to revive a stale request for relief after the relevant period had lapsed, although a fresh application could still be made if later circumstances justified travel abroad. On that basis, the claimed permission was refused. en-us Mon, 04 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 May 2026 08:32:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791073 The purchase order was interpreted as showing that the parallel run period operated concurrently with the ERP implementation period, not as a separate consecutive term. The appellant's own pleading treated the purchase order as lasting 13 months, and the Tribunal found that the basis for seeking permission to travel abroad had expired with that work period. The appeal could not be used to revive a stale request for relief after the relevant period had lapsed, although a fresh application could still be made if later circumstances justified travel abroad. On that basis, the claimed permission was refused. Case-Laws IBC Mon, 04 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791073