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 Appellate Tribunal considered the validity of assessment proceedings under Sec 153A where the approval process under Sec 153D was not followed by the Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal noted that the approval granted lacked proper consideration of factual and legal aspects, being a mere formality without actual supervision by the sanctioning authority. The Tribunal found a similar issue favorably adjudicated in the assessee's own case for another assessment year, where the lack of propriety in such approvals was acknowledged. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the assessment order for the year in question, based on a deficient approval process, lacked enforceability in law and was therefore quashed in favor of the assessee.
The Appellate Tribunal considered the validity of assessment proceedings under Sec 153A where the approval process under Sec 153D was not followed by the Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal noted that the approval granted lacked proper consideration of factual and legal aspects, being a mere formality without actual supervision by the sanctioning authority. The Tribunal found a similar issue favorably adjudicated in the assessee's own case for another assessment year, where the lack of propriety in such approvals was acknowledged. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the assessment order for the year in question, based on a deficient approval process, lacked enforceability in law and was therefore quashed in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.