Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
The Appellate Tribunal held that an adjudicating authority cannot sustain directions issued in a cryptic order that merely reproduces rival submissions without findings on facts or law. Because the impugned order gave no reasons for allowing the application and did not show judicial application of mind, it was treated as a non-speaking order incapable of legal sustenance. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration, with directions to hear both parties and pass a reasoned decision in accordance with law.
The Appellate Tribunal held that an adjudicating authority cannot sustain directions issued in a cryptic order that merely reproduces rival submissions without findings on facts or law. Because the impugned order gave no reasons for allowing the application and did not show judicial application of mind, it was treated as a non-speaking order incapable of legal sustenance. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration, with directions to hear both parties and pass a reasoned decision in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
