Independent manufacturing undertaking eligibility preserves Section 80IA/80IB deductions, while machinery kept ready for use qualifies for depreciatio...
Assessing Officer Satisfaction Requirement Bars Penalty for Cash Receipt in Immovable-Property Sale Cases Where Initiation Lacks Recorded Satisfaction...
The HC held that the impugned adjudicative order violated the principles of natural justice, specifically audi alteram partem, because the officer who conducted the personal hearing did not render the decision; a successor officer decided the matter without affording a fresh hearing. Reliance on administrative guidance requiring prompt issuance of orders following personal hearings reinforced that divided responsibility between hearing and decision-making undermines fairness. Consequently, the HC quashed the impugned order as vitiated for denial of a fair hearing and allowed the petition, directing that any fresh decision be taken by the officer who affords the hearing or, if by a successor, only after providing the petitioner a fresh opportunity of personal hearing.
The HC held that the impugned adjudicative order violated the principles of natural justice, specifically audi alteram partem, because the officer who conducted the personal hearing did not render the decision; a successor officer decided the matter without affording a fresh hearing. Reliance on administrative guidance requiring prompt issuance of orders following personal hearings reinforced that divided responsibility between hearing and decision-making undermines fairness. Consequently, the HC quashed the impugned order as vitiated for denial of a fair hearing and allowed the petition, directing that any fresh decision be taken by the officer who affords the hearing or, if by a successor, only after providing the petitioner a fresh opportunity of personal hearing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.