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...
Section 122(1A) is construed to cover "any person" other than the taxable person where that person retained the benefit of the contravening transactions and acted at whose instance they were done; on that basis, partners of a firm can be proceeded against if those factual conditions are recorded. The provision is treated as complementary to Section 122(1), not as creating a new independent offence, so it may apply to transactions predating 1 January 2021 if the show-cause notice was issued after the provision came into force. The writ challenge was rejected, while the petitioners were left free to contest the factual findings before the Appellate Tribunal.
Section 122(1A) is construed to cover "any person" other than the taxable person where that person retained the benefit of the contravening transactions and acted at whose instance they were done; on that basis, partners of a firm can be proceeded against if those factual conditions are recorded. The provision is treated as complementary to Section 122(1), not as creating a new independent offence, so it may apply to transactions predating 1 January 2021 if the show-cause notice was issued after the provision came into force. The writ challenge was rejected, while the petitioners were left free to contest the factual findings before the Appellate Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.