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 held that the respondents improperly sought a 5% compounding charge because such higher rate is chargeable only where an earlier offence has been lawfully compounded and the conditions of that compounding order have been complied with; where the first compounding application was rejected, no compounding order arose and 5% could not be claimed on the subsequent application. The petitioner's contention that the higher rate was inapplicable was accepted, the impugned letter dated 08.02.2019 was set aside, and the respondents were directed to proceed in accordance with law in relation to the pending compounding application and any attendant criminal proceedings.
The HC held that the respondents improperly sought a 5% compounding charge because such higher rate is chargeable only where an earlier offence has been lawfully compounded and the conditions of that compounding order have been complied with; where the first compounding application was rejected, no compounding order arose and 5% could not be claimed on the subsequent application. The petitioner's contention that the higher rate was inapplicable was accepted, the impugned letter dated 08.02.2019 was set aside, and the respondents were directed to proceed in accordance with law in relation to the pending compounding application and any attendant criminal proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
