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...
For limitation purposes, a dealer's declared date of communication of an adjudication order must be treated as the actual communication date unless the Revenue rebuts it with cogent material. Treating the order date itself as the communication date, despite an unrebutted assertion of later receipt, cannot justify dismissal of the statutory appeal as time-barred. The appellate order was quashed, and the appeal was remitted to the appellate authority for fresh consideration after hearing the parties.
For limitation purposes, a dealer's declared date of communication of an adjudication order must be treated as the actual communication date unless the Revenue rebuts it with cogent material. Treating the order date itself as the communication date, despite an unrebutted assertion of later receipt, cannot justify dismissal of the statutory appeal as time-barred. The appellate order was quashed, and the appeal was remitted to the appellate authority for fresh consideration after hearing the parties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
