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 after four years requires fresh tangible material and satisfaction of the proviso to section 147; a reassessment cannot rest on a mere change of opinion. Audit objections led the Assessing Officer to re-examine balance-sheet documents and records already available during the original assessment, without new evidence or information indicating escaped income. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment for lack of jurisdiction. High Court found no substantial question of law, affirming that the Assessing Officer could not reopen the assessment solely through reappraisal of existing material beyond the four-year period.
Reopening after four years requires fresh tangible material and satisfaction of the proviso to section 147; a reassessment cannot rest on a mere change of opinion. Audit objections led the Assessing Officer to re-examine balance-sheet documents and records already available during the original assessment, without new evidence or information indicating escaped income. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment for lack of jurisdiction. High Court found no substantial question of law, affirming that the Assessing Officer could not reopen the assessment solely through reappraisal of existing material beyond the four-year period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.