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...
Sections 144C and 153 require harmonious construction when determining limitation for a final assessment made pursuant to DRP directions. The non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) does not displace the outer time limit under section 153; the final assessment must therefore be completed within that prescribed limitation period. Applying the binding High Court precedent, the ITAT treated the final assessment for Assessment Year 2018-19 as time-barred and quashed it. Merits grounds remained open, with liberty to seek revival if a Supreme Court decision requires modification.
Sections 144C and 153 require harmonious construction when determining limitation for a final assessment made pursuant to DRP directions. The non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) does not displace the outer time limit under section 153; the final assessment must therefore be completed within that prescribed limitation period. Applying the binding High Court precedent, the ITAT treated the final assessment for Assessment Year 2018-19 as time-barred and quashed it. Merits grounds remained open, with liberty to seek revival if a Supreme Court decision requires modification.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
