Appellate jurisdiction over baggage imports is excluded, requiring confiscation challenges involving passenger-carried gold to proceed by statutory re...
Article 227 review permits intervention in arbitration only for manifest, patent inherent jurisdictional defects, not representational authority dispu...
The ITAT held that the ex parte dismissal by the CIT(A) did not comply with s. 250(6) of the Act because the order failed to state the points for determination, decisions thereon and reasons; accordingly the impugned order was set aside. The matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction that the Appellant shall cooperate in proceedings before the CIT(A). The Tribunal treated the grounds as allowed for statistical purposes and remitted the issue for de novo consideration, rejecting the in limine dismissal and requiring the CIT(A) to decide the points with cogent reasons.
The ITAT held that the ex parte dismissal by the CIT(A) did not comply with s. 250(6) of the Act because the order failed to state the points for determination, decisions thereon and reasons; accordingly the impugned order was set aside. The matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction that the Appellant shall cooperate in proceedings before the CIT(A). The Tribunal treated the grounds as allowed for statistical purposes and remitted the issue for de novo consideration, rejecting the in limine dismissal and requiring the CIT(A) to decide the points with cogent reasons.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
