Infrastructure facility: energy-efficient public lighting held integral to road projects, qualifying the operator as a developer and eligible for dedu...
Fourth Proviso to Section 153A: extended-period inquiry requires a reasonable, material-based satisfaction that escaped income likely exceeds the thre...
The appellate authority misread Rule 112 by treating production of additional evidence in appeal as unavailable, without examining whether the case fell within clauses (a) to (d) of sub-rule (1). The High Court held that the petitioner's contentions on the admissibility of additional evidence required consideration, and that the matter could also have been remanded to the original authority if factual examination was necessary. Because the substantive grounds and additional evidence were not considered under Rule 112, the appellate order could not stand. The order was set aside and the appeal remanded for fresh decision, with all contentions left open.
The appellate authority misread Rule 112 by treating production of additional evidence in appeal as unavailable, without examining whether the case fell within clauses (a) to (d) of sub-rule (1). The High Court held that the petitioner's contentions on the admissibility of additional evidence required consideration, and that the matter could also have been remanded to the original authority if factual examination was necessary. Because the substantive grounds and additional evidence were not considered under Rule 112, the appellate order could not stand. The order was set aside and the appeal remanded for fresh decision, with all contentions left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
