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...
Penalty liability of firm partners for fraudulent input tax credit was upheld where the adjudicating authority linked them, through their own statements, WhatsApp chats and other electronic material, to fake invoices, fake e-way bills and hawala routing of funds. The High Court held that the order was a reasoned adjudication and that the findings showed the firm's affairs were carried on with the petitioners' knowledge and consent, bringing them within the liability contemplated under Section 122(1A). The challenge based on breach of natural justice failed, Kranti Associates was held inapplicable, and no case for interference under Article 226 was made out. The writ petition was rejected.
Penalty liability of firm partners for fraudulent input tax credit was upheld where the adjudicating authority linked them, through their own statements, WhatsApp chats and other electronic material, to fake invoices, fake e-way bills and hawala routing of funds. The High Court held that the order was a reasoned adjudication and that the findings showed the firm's affairs were carried on with the petitioners' knowledge and consent, bringing them within the liability contemplated under Section 122(1A). The challenge based on breach of natural justice failed, Kranti Associates was held inapplicable, and no case for interference under Article 226 was made out. The writ petition was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
