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...
Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - non-compliance of notices u/s. 142(1) - , ‘blind faith’ in his local consultant - There has been no explanation as to why the consultant, after being apologetic of his consent, continued to behave in such an irresponsible manner, amounting to gross professional misconduct, which cannot be lightly inferred. The other reason stated for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals is the non-connectivity with the Revenue's e-portal, which could at best explain the delay by a few days. Under the circumstances, find no merit in the assessee's case qua penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) as well. - AT
Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - non-compliance of notices u/s. 142(1) - , ‘blind faith’ in his local consultant - There has been no explanation as to why the consultant, after being apologetic of his consent, continued to behave in such an irresponsible manner, amounting to gross professional misconduct, which cannot be lightly inferred. The other reason stated for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals is the non-connectivity with the Revenue's e-portal, which could at best explain the delay by a few days. Under the circumstances, find no merit in the assessee's case qua penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) as well. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
