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...
A typographical error in the appellate directions led the Assessing Officer to retain part of a section 69 addition for unexplained investment, even though the draft assessment order had made a combined addition for time deposits and reportable transactions. The Tribunal read the reasoning in the directions as showing that both underlying components were meant to be deleted, and treated the differing aggregate figure as a clerical mistake. On that basis, no balance addition could survive in the final assessment order, and the retained amount was deleted.
A typographical error in the appellate directions led the Assessing Officer to retain part of a section 69 addition for unexplained investment, even though the draft assessment order had made a combined addition for time deposits and reportable transactions. The Tribunal read the reasoning in the directions as showing that both underlying components were meant to be deleted, and treated the differing aggregate figure as a clerical mistake. On that basis, no balance addition could survive in the final assessment order, and the retained amount was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
