Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
Embezzlement losses in charitable institutions remain allowable when misappropriation is established, irrecoverable, and not a specified-person benefi...
National long-distance undertaking status supports deduction where separately licensed infrastructure, resources, revenue, and expenditure establish c...
Agency reimbursement income follows contractual deposit-liability computation, while pending deposit collections do not constitute deemed-dividend loa...
HC held that the impugned order dated 6 February 2025 was vitiated by breach of the statutory rules of natural justice, insofar as the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity for personal oral hearing after service of a show-cause notice and filing of a written reply; under Section 75 the rights to submit a written reply and to an oral hearing are distinct and independently enforceable. The HC set aside the impugned order and allowed the petition by way of remand, directing respondent No.2 to revisit the matter and pass a fresh order in accordance with the mandatory procedural requirements, thereby restoring the petitioner's entitlement to a fair hearing.
HC held that the impugned order dated 6 February 2025 was vitiated by breach of the statutory rules of natural justice, insofar as the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity for personal oral hearing after service of a show-cause notice and filing of a written reply; under Section 75 the rights to submit a written reply and to an oral hearing are distinct and independently enforceable. The HC set aside the impugned order and allowed the petition by way of remand, directing respondent No.2 to revisit the matter and pass a fresh order in accordance with the mandatory procedural requirements, thereby restoring the petitioner's entitlement to a fair hearing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4884 
