Reassessment under s.148A held valid; s.69 additions totaling Rs.7,00,000 deleted after acceptable contemporaneous explanations for property investmen...
Adjudication set aside; Rule 9 valuation based on internet engineer report quashed for Rule 3(4) non-compliance; Section 138B cross-examination requir...
The HC allowed the petition under section 254(2), holding that the Tribunal's order was vitiated by failure to consider material evidence, submissions made at hearing, and relevant jurisprudence; the Tribunal's conclusion denying the Petitioner deduction under section 80-IA was therefore unsustainable. The court found the impugned order affected by a mistake apparent from the record, rejected the Revenue's reliance on contrary authorities as misconceived, set aside the Tribunal's decision, and remitted the appeals to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Directions were given to decide the matters de novo after considering the factual documents and legal contentions placed on record.
The HC allowed the petition under section 254(2), holding that the Tribunal's order was vitiated by failure to consider material evidence, submissions made at hearing, and relevant jurisprudence; the Tribunal's conclusion denying the Petitioner deduction under section 80-IA was therefore unsustainable. The court found the impugned order affected by a mistake apparent from the record, rejected the Revenue's reliance on contrary authorities as misconceived, set aside the Tribunal's decision, and remitted the appeals to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Directions were given to decide the matters de novo after considering the factual documents and legal contentions placed on record.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
