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...
Penalty u/s 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act 1962 - smuggling - Gold Bars - the statements of the co-noticee cannot be adopted as a legal evidence to penalize the accused unless the same are corroborated with material particulars by independent evidence. The statement of co-accused cannot be used against the appellant, particularly when appellant has denied his involvement in respect of the goods in question - AT
Penalty u/s 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act 1962 - smuggling - Gold Bars - the statements of the co-noticee cannot be adopted as a legal evidence to penalize the accused unless the same are corroborated with material particulars by independent evidence. The statement of co-accused cannot be used against the appellant, particularly when appellant has denied his involvement in respect of the goods in question - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
