Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
Where a faceless reassessment effectively operates as a best judgment assessment because the assessee does not comply with section 142(1) notices and does not adequately to section 144 show-cause notices, the Commissioner (Appeals) may set aside the matter and remit it for fresh assessment. The Tribunal noted that the proviso to section 251(1)(a), inserted from 1 October 2024, expressly permits such a remand in appeals against orders made under section 144. As additional evidence in the form of e-way bills had been filed and the assessee alleged inadequate opportunity, the remand was held proper. The Revenue's challenge failed and the remand order was upheld.
Where a faceless reassessment effectively operates as a best judgment assessment because the assessee does not comply with section 142(1) notices and does not adequately to section 144 show-cause notices, the Commissioner (Appeals) may set aside the matter and remit it for fresh assessment. The Tribunal noted that the proviso to section 251(1)(a), inserted from 1 October 2024, expressly permits such a remand in appeals against orders made under section 144. As additional evidence in the form of e-way bills had been filed and the assessee alleged inadequate opportunity, the remand was held proper. The Revenue's challenge failed and the remand order was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.