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...
Reopening after a scrutiny assessment was invalid where the recorded reasons incorrectly stated that the return had only been processed under limited processing and, on that false premise, invoked the deeming escapement provision. Because the original assessment had in fact been completed under scrutiny assessment, the Tribunal held that the recorded reasons disclosed clear non-application of mind. The reassessment proceedings were therefore held void ab initio, bad in law and quashed.
Reopening after a scrutiny assessment was invalid where the recorded reasons incorrectly stated that the return had only been processed under limited processing and, on that false premise, invoked the deeming escapement provision. Because the original assessment had in fact been completed under scrutiny assessment, the Tribunal held that the recorded reasons disclosed clear non-application of mind. The reassessment proceedings were therefore held void ab initio, bad in law and quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.