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...
Penalty under section 270A could not be sustained where the assessee's revised-return claim rested on a bona fide, legally plausible POEM-based position under a then-nascent legal framework, and all material facts were disclosed. Rejection of the claim in assessment did not, by itself, establish misreporting, deliberate suppression, or contumacious conduct, so the case fell outside section 270A(9)(a). The Tribunal also held that assessment and penalty proceedings are separate and independent, and failure to appeal the quantum addition did not amount to acceptance of wrongdoing or justify penalty. The penalties were quashed and both appeals allowed.
Penalty under section 270A could not be sustained where the assessee's revised-return claim rested on a bona fide, legally plausible POEM-based position under a then-nascent legal framework, and all material facts were disclosed. Rejection of the claim in assessment did not, by itself, establish misreporting, deliberate suppression, or contumacious conduct, so the case fell outside section 270A(9)(a). The Tribunal also held that assessment and penalty proceedings are separate and independent, and failure to appeal the quantum addition did not amount to acceptance of wrongdoing or justify penalty. The penalties were quashed and both appeals allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.