Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The HC held that the Adjudicating Authority failed to comply with Regulation 27 of the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013, by not duly serving the order dated 7.10.2024 on the petitioner or his counsel, despite the petitioner's counsel having filed a Vakalatnama and the petitioner being in judicial custody. The court directed the Adjudicating Authority to furnish a copy of the order to the petitioner or his counsel within seven days of receiving the present order and granted the petitioner 20 days thereafter to file an appeal. The HC emphasized that the appeal tribunal is not bound by its observations and shall adjudicate the appeal on its merits. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
The HC held that the Adjudicating Authority failed to comply with Regulation 27 of the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013, by not duly serving the order dated 7.10.2024 on the petitioner or his counsel, despite the petitioner's counsel having filed a Vakalatnama and the petitioner being in judicial custody. The court directed the Adjudicating Authority to furnish a copy of the order to the petitioner or his counsel within seven days of receiving the present order and granted the petitioner 20 days thereafter to file an appeal. The HC emphasized that the appeal tribunal is not bound by its observations and shall adjudicate the appeal on its merits. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
