Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
Proceedings before the National Anti-profiteering Authority - The litigant is entitled to be heard by all members who are the ultimate decision-makers so the litigant can try to convince each member of the adjudicating Authority. Therefore oral hearing is clearly contemplated and the argument of the Respondent that since all the record was before the Authority, there is no illegality in the fourth member in signing the order, is not correct.
Proceedings before the National Anti-profiteering Authority - The litigant is entitled to be heard by all members who are the ultimate decision-makers so the litigant can try to convince each member of the adjudicating Authority. Therefore oral hearing is clearly contemplated and the argument of the Respondent that since all the record was before the Authority, there is no illegality in the fourth member in signing the order, is not correct.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
