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...
The first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS is mandatory, so the accused must be heard before cognizance is taken; safeguards under the Income-tax Act do not displace that requirement. The court applied the rule that a statutory act prescribed in a particular manner must be done only in that manner, and rejected the argument that pre-cognizance hearing is an empty formality. Because cognizance was taken after the BNSS came into force, Section 531 did not preserve the earlier procedure, and the applicable BNSS procedure governed. Non-compliance was therefore an illegality vitiating the proceedings, so the cognizance orders were set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the accused.
The first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS is mandatory, so the accused must be heard before cognizance is taken; safeguards under the Income-tax Act do not displace that requirement. The court applied the rule that a statutory act prescribed in a particular manner must be done only in that manner, and rejected the argument that pre-cognizance hearing is an empty formality. Because cognizance was taken after the BNSS came into force, Section 531 did not preserve the earlier procedure, and the applicable BNSS procedure governed. Non-compliance was therefore an illegality vitiating the proceedings, so the cognizance orders were set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the accused.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
