Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving contravention of section 9(1)(f)(i) of FERA 1973. The appellant argued lack of material and violation of natural justice, requesting cross-examination of Sudhir Kapadia. The order lacked evidence linking the appellant to the alleged contravention. Sudhir Kapadia's statement was the sole basis, but he retracted it. The appellant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine him. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence against the appellant and set aside the order, highlighting the need for proper evidence and fair procedure.
The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving contravention of section 9(1)(f)(i) of FERA 1973. The appellant argued lack of material and violation of natural justice, requesting cross-examination of Sudhir Kapadia. The order lacked evidence linking the appellant to the alleged contravention. Sudhir Kapadia's statement was the sole basis, but he retracted it. The appellant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine him. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence against the appellant and set aside the order, highlighting the need for proper evidence and fair procedure.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
