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 of assessment was examined on the basis of incorrect facts, borrowed satisfaction and an uncorroborated search statement. The Tribunal noted that the recorded reasons wrongly stated that share premium had been received and even identified entities that had not been allotted shares, showing non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. It further held that reopening could not rest only on the director's statement without supporting material, consistent with CBDT instructions discouraging additions based solely on confession. On that basis, the notice for reopening and the consequential reassessment were quashed, and the jurisdictional challenge was allowed.
Reopening of assessment was examined on the basis of incorrect facts, borrowed satisfaction and an uncorroborated search statement. The Tribunal noted that the recorded reasons wrongly stated that share premium had been received and even identified entities that had not been allotted shares, showing non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. It further held that reopening could not rest only on the director's statement without supporting material, consistent with CBDT instructions discouraging additions based solely on confession. On that basis, the notice for reopening and the consequential reassessment were quashed, and the jurisdictional challenge was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.