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 mistaken reference to the wrong tax penalty provision does not, by itself, invalidate proceedings; however, where the order imposes a penalty rate consistent with the wrong provision, the error is substantive rather than clerical. The discrepancy between a 100% penalty under one provision and a 50% penalty under the applicable provision showed that the power had been exercised on the wrong footing, making the order unsustainable. Fresh proceedings may be initiated under the correct provision in accordance with law.
A mistaken reference to the wrong tax penalty provision does not, by itself, invalidate proceedings; however, where the order imposes a penalty rate consistent with the wrong provision, the error is substantive rather than clerical. The discrepancy between a 100% penalty under one provision and a 50% penalty under the applicable provision showed that the power had been exercised on the wrong footing, making the order unsustainable. Fresh proceedings may be initiated under the correct provision in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.