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...
Levy of penalty u/s 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act 1962 - petitioner has any role in the smuggling of Gold activity or not - Appellant is the financer of the importer - It is found that the appellant cannot come within the ambit of Section 112(b) because appellants had never acquired possession or in any way concerned in any of the activities mentioned in the Section or any measure dealing with any goods which the appellants knew or had reason to believe are liable to confiscation. - AT
Levy of penalty u/s 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act 1962 - petitioner has any role in the smuggling of Gold activity or not - Appellant is the financer of the importer - It is found that the appellant cannot come within the ambit of Section 112(b) because appellants had never acquired possession or in any way concerned in any of the activities mentioned in the Section or any measure dealing with any goods which the appellants knew or had reason to believe are liable to confiscation. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
