Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
HC held that the inquiry report issued by the second respondent is vitiated and set aside, and the disciplinary proceedings have abated for failure to comply with the mandatory timelines prescribed by Reg.17(1) and Reg.17(5) of the CBLR, 2018. The court found the inquiry report dated 27.6.2025 was submitted and not communicated within the statutory 90-day period, thereby depriving the petitioner of a timely copy and rendering subsequent action ultra vires; estoppel could not be invoked to cure the statutory breach. Given abatement, the HC declined to adjudicate the separate contention concerning the right to cross-examine witnesses; petition allowed.
HC held that the inquiry report issued by the second respondent is vitiated and set aside, and the disciplinary proceedings have abated for failure to comply with the mandatory timelines prescribed by Reg.17(1) and Reg.17(5) of the CBLR, 2018. The court found the inquiry report dated 27.6.2025 was submitted and not communicated within the statutory 90-day period, thereby depriving the petitioner of a timely copy and rendering subsequent action ultra vires; estoppel could not be invoked to cure the statutory breach. Given abatement, the HC declined to adjudicate the separate contention concerning the right to cross-examine witnesses; petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
