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 HC dismissed the appeal as time barred due to a 91-day delay in filing. The court held that the appellant/department, alleging lack of diligence by the respondent/assessee, must also adhere to the limitation period for filing appeals. The principle of equal diligence applies to both parties. The statute requires a fresh refund application following rectification of deficiencies. The court modified the Single Bench's direction, ordering the respondent to rectify all noted deficiencies and submit a fresh refund application within two weeks of receiving the order's certified copy. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the matter was remanded for compliance with these conditions.
The HC dismissed the appeal as time barred due to a 91-day delay in filing. The court held that the appellant/department, alleging lack of diligence by the respondent/assessee, must also adhere to the limitation period for filing appeals. The principle of equal diligence applies to both parties. The statute requires a fresh refund application following rectification of deficiencies. The court modified the Single Bench's direction, ordering the respondent to rectify all noted deficiencies and submit a fresh refund application within two weeks of receiving the order's certified copy. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the matter was remanded for compliance with these conditions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.