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 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.