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...
Exemption u/s 11 - Inadequate rent received by the respondent/assessee - The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) that the respondent had not taken any security deposit from Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) and thereby violated Section 13(2)(b) of the Act, has also been stated only to be rejected. Security Deposit may be one of the factors to be taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer for coming to a conclusion if the rent was “adequate”, however, it cannot be a sole determinative factor. - HC
Exemption u/s 11 - Inadequate rent received by the respondent/assessee - The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) that the respondent had not taken any security deposit from Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) and thereby violated Section 13(2)(b) of the Act, has also been stated only to be rejected. Security Deposit may be one of the factors to be taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer for coming to a conclusion if the rent was “adequate”, however, it cannot be a sole determinative factor. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.