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 271D cannot survive once the reassessment orders and the recorded satisfaction forming its basis are quashed, because the alleged section 269SS violation loses its substratum. The Tribunal also held that levy of penalty requires reliable independent evidence of actual acceptance of cash loans or deposits; third-party statements and alleged coded entries, without corroboration in the assessee's books or other incriminating material, were insufficient. As the related additions had already been deleted and no separate proof of cash borrowing was established, the penalties for both assessment years were held unsustainable and directed to be deleted.
Penalty under section 271D cannot survive once the reassessment orders and the recorded satisfaction forming its basis are quashed, because the alleged section 269SS violation loses its substratum. The Tribunal also held that levy of penalty requires reliable independent evidence of actual acceptance of cash loans or deposits; third-party statements and alleged coded entries, without corroboration in the assessee's books or other incriminating material, were insufficient. As the related additions had already been deleted and no separate proof of cash borrowing was established, the penalties for both assessment years were held unsustainable and directed to be deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.