Pre-amendment reassessment limitation bars late notices under the preserved regime, invalidating consequential reassessment for affected earlier asses...
Cash-sales explanations for bank deposits require documentary reconciliation; reassessment notice survived where effective response time was available...
Functional comparability in transfer pricing prevents ad hoc arm's length adjustments where functions, assets, risks and reliable comparables are unes...
Oppression and Mismanagement - removal of director for not attending three consecutive meetings - extract of meeting dated 20.5.2010 has been signed by the appellant, it also establishes that impliedly the leave of absence in defacto is given - respondents were very well aware that the appellant is in U.K. despite notice issued to Visakhapatnam address and despite corresponding with the appellant via emails, no notice via mail was given - filing Form No.32 with ROC for vacation of office by the appellant is not legal
Oppression and Mismanagement - removal of director for not attending three consecutive meetings - extract of meeting dated 20.5.2010 has been signed by the appellant, it also establishes that impliedly the leave of absence in defacto is given - respondents were very well aware that the appellant is in U.K. despite notice issued to Visakhapatnam address and despite corresponding with the appellant via emails, no notice via mail was given - filing Form No.32 with ROC for vacation of office by the appellant is not legal
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.