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...
The High Court considered a challenge to an assessment order based on disparity between the petitioner's GSTR 3B return and the supplier's GSTR 1 return. The petitioner's explanation for the disparity was noted, attributing it to the supplier's error in reporting turnover. The court found the petitioner negligent for not uploading the reply and not participating in proceedings. The petitioner agreed to remit 10% of the disputed demand for a remand. In the interest of justice, the court quashed the order, allowing the petitioner to contest the tax demand by placing relevant documents on record. The impugned order was set aside on the condition of remitting 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks.
The High Court considered a challenge to an assessment order based on disparity between the petitioner's GSTR 3B return and the supplier's GSTR 1 return. The petitioner's explanation for the disparity was noted, attributing it to the supplier's error in reporting turnover. The court found the petitioner negligent for not uploading the reply and not participating in proceedings. The petitioner agreed to remit 10% of the disputed demand for a remand. In the interest of justice, the court quashed the order, allowing the petitioner to contest the tax demand by placing relevant documents on record. The impugned order was set aside on the condition of remitting 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
