Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
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.