Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.