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...
An application for waiver of interest and penalty under section 128A could not be rejected solely because input tax credit had been availed from non-existing taxpayers, cancelled dealers, or return defaulters. The High Court held that, since an assessment order had been issued and no appellate order existed, the application fell within clause (b) of section 128A(1) and related to a covered period. If the alleged ITC irregularity was the real basis, proceedings ought to have been initiated under section 74; the record showed they were initiated under section 73. The rejection was therefore unsustainable, the order was set aside, and the waiver application was remanded for fresh consideration.
An application for waiver of interest and penalty under section 128A could not be rejected solely because input tax credit had been availed from non-existing taxpayers, cancelled dealers, or return defaulters. The High Court held that, since an assessment order had been issued and no appellate order existed, the application fell within clause (b) of section 128A(1) and related to a covered period. If the alleged ITC irregularity was the real basis, proceedings ought to have been initiated under section 74; the record showed they were initiated under section 73. The rejection was therefore unsustainable, the order was set aside, and the waiver application was remanded for fresh consideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
