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...
Clause 10(e) of the CBDT circular on low-tax-effect appeals was construed as an exception covering enforcement agencies akin to CBI, ED, DRI, SFIO and DGGI, rather than those names alone. On that interpretation, the VAT department was treated as falling within the exception because it functioned as an enforcement agency. The Tribunal therefore misread the circular by excluding VAT merely because it was not expressly named. The order rejecting the Revenue's rectification application was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Tribunal for decision on merits after hearing both sides.
Clause 10(e) of the CBDT circular on low-tax-effect appeals was construed as an exception covering enforcement agencies akin to CBI, ED, DRI, SFIO and DGGI, rather than those names alone. On that interpretation, the VAT department was treated as falling within the exception because it functioned as an enforcement agency. The Tribunal therefore misread the circular by excluding VAT merely because it was not expressly named. The order rejecting the Revenue's rectification application was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Tribunal for decision on merits after hearing both sides.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.