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...
Reassessment after four years was impermissible because the recorded reasons did not establish any failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The information relied on for reopening-the nature of the business, licence arrangement, Indian company status, shareholding structure and related particulars-was already disclosed in the return, annual report, tax audit report and Form 3CEB, and the reasons merely asserted nondisclosure without identifying any specific undisclosed fact. On the section 80-IA issue, the reasons were also found erroneous: the relevant enterprise was the container terminal undertaking owned by the Indian assessee, and the Revenue had overlooked the assessee's own development activity and installation of terminal equipment. The reopening notice and consequential orders were quashed.
Reassessment after four years was impermissible because the recorded reasons did not establish any failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The information relied on for reopening-the nature of the business, licence arrangement, Indian company status, shareholding structure and related particulars-was already disclosed in the return, annual report, tax audit report and Form 3CEB, and the reasons merely asserted nondisclosure without identifying any specific undisclosed fact. On the section 80-IA issue, the reasons were also found erroneous: the relevant enterprise was the container terminal undertaking owned by the Indian assessee, and the Revenue had overlooked the assessee's own development activity and installation of terminal equipment. The reopening notice and consequential orders were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.