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...
HC allowed the writ petition challenging reassessment proceedings under Section 147. The court found that the Assessing Officer (AO) lacked valid grounds for reopening the assessment, as the taxpayer had made full and true disclosure during the original proceedings. The AO failed to demonstrate independent application of mind or identify any fresh information justifying reassessment. The court observed that the AO was cognizant of all relevant facts during the initial assessment and merely relied on a subsequent year's communication without substantive evidence of concealment or incorrect information. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed as procedurally invalid and without reasonable basis.
HC allowed the writ petition challenging reassessment proceedings under Section 147. The court found that the Assessing Officer (AO) lacked valid grounds for reopening the assessment, as the taxpayer had made full and true disclosure during the original proceedings. The AO failed to demonstrate independent application of mind or identify any fresh information justifying reassessment. The court observed that the AO was cognizant of all relevant facts during the initial assessment and merely relied on a subsequent year's communication without substantive evidence of concealment or incorrect information. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed as procedurally invalid and without reasonable basis.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.