Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to admit and decide on merits the assessee's additional ground relating to weighted deduction under section 35(1)(ii)/35(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, though the claim had not been raised before the Assessing Officer.
Analysis: The additional ground was treated as relevant to the proper adjudication of the dispute. The appellate authorities were held to have ample power to entertain such a ground where its consideration was necessary to do justice, and section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was relied upon as conferring wide power on the Tribunal to pass orders as it thinks fit after hearing both parties.
Conclusion: The direction to admit the additional ground was upheld and the question was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.