Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Rule 46A permits additional evidence before the first appellate authority only in the specified circumstances, and the permission must be supported by a written, reasoned order; the Assessing Officer must also be given a mandatory opportunity to examine and rebut that evidence in compliance with audi alteram partem. Here, no reasons were recorded for admitting the additional evidence and no material showed that the Assessing Officer was afforded any real opportunity to rebut it. The Tribunal therefore erred in sustaining the Commissioner (Appeals)' order. The Tribunal and Commissioner (Appeals) orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh speaking order on admission of additional evidence and, if admitted, an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to rebut it.
Rule 46A permits additional evidence before the first appellate authority only in the specified circumstances, and the permission must be supported by a written, reasoned order; the Assessing Officer must also be given a mandatory opportunity to examine and rebut that evidence in compliance with audi alteram partem. Here, no reasons were recorded for admitting the additional evidence and no material showed that the Assessing Officer was afforded any real opportunity to rebut it. The Tribunal therefore erred in sustaining the Commissioner (Appeals)' order. The Tribunal and Commissioner (Appeals) orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh speaking order on admission of additional evidence and, if admitted, an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to rebut it.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.