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...
Mandatory pre-show cause intimation under Rule 142(1)(A) was not issued before initiation of the assessment proceedings, and that fact was undisputed. Applying the earlier Division Bench ruling on the same point, the HC held that such non-compliance vitiates the assessment order and requires it to be set aside. The impugned assessment for the relevant financial year was accordingly quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh assessment in accordance with law, subject to deposit of 20% of the disputed tax within the time granted.
Mandatory pre-show cause intimation under Rule 142(1)(A) was not issued before initiation of the assessment proceedings, and that fact was undisputed. Applying the earlier Division Bench ruling on the same point, the HC held that such non-compliance vitiates the assessment order and requires it to be set aside. The impugned assessment for the relevant financial year was accordingly quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh assessment in accordance with law, subject to deposit of 20% of the disputed tax within the time granted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
