Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The High Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law by adjudicating an issue not raised by the Revenue regarding the relevant date of transfer of tenancy rights. The Tribunal deviated from the specific grounds raised by the Revenue, which pertained to whether the rights crystallized as per the consent terms dated 28 May 1999 or on 22 February 2007 when the Deed of Confirmation was registered. Instead, the Tribunal decided that the transfer took place on 04 November 2004 based on a tripartite agreement, an issue not raised by the Revenue. The Court observed that judicial adjudication should be confined to the grounds raised and cannot delve into issues not called upon to be answered. Consequently, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication, keeping all contentions of the parties on facts and law open.
The High Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law by adjudicating an issue not raised by the Revenue regarding the relevant date of transfer of tenancy rights. The Tribunal deviated from the specific grounds raised by the Revenue, which pertained to whether the rights crystallized as per the consent terms dated 28 May 1999 or on 22 February 2007 when the Deed of Confirmation was registered. Instead, the Tribunal decided that the transfer took place on 04 November 2004 based on a tripartite agreement, an issue not raised by the Revenue. The Court observed that judicial adjudication should be confined to the grounds raised and cannot delve into issues not called upon to be answered. Consequently, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication, keeping all contentions of the parties on facts and law open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
