Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
The Supreme Court examined the validity of an Agreement to Sell for land, where the plaintiff entered into the agreement with a Power of Attorney holder for the defendants. The Court found that the agreement lacked signatures of all co-owners, and the power of attorney was not proven during trial. The plaintiff failed to appear as a witness, relying on the Power of Attorney holder instead. The Court noted the delay in filing the suit, which was done on the last day of the extended limitation period. As the plaintiff only engaged with one co-owner and delayed legal action despite knowledge of subsequent transactions, specific performance relief was denied due to the delay and failure to meet legal requirements.
The Supreme Court examined the validity of an Agreement to Sell for land, where the plaintiff entered into the agreement with a Power of Attorney holder for the defendants. The Court found that the agreement lacked signatures of all co-owners, and the power of attorney was not proven during trial. The plaintiff failed to appear as a witness, relying on the Power of Attorney holder instead. The Court noted the delay in filing the suit, which was done on the last day of the extended limitation period. As the plaintiff only engaged with one co-owner and delayed legal action despite knowledge of subsequent transactions, specific performance relief was denied due to the delay and failure to meet legal requirements.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
