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 AT accepted the DGAP report in part, finding that the respondent had profiteered Rs. 6,88,770 for the period 27.07.2018-31.10.2018 and directed the respondent to deposit that profiteered amount into the Consumer Welfare Fund, to be apportioned equally between the Centre and States. The Tribunal held that the statutory provision imposing interest at 18% on profiteered amounts is not applicable retrospectively; it operates only from the date the amending rule came into force (post-28.06.2019), and therefore, because the profiteering occurred prior thereto, the respondent was not directed to pay interest. The application was disposed of accordingly.
The AT accepted the DGAP report in part, finding that the respondent had profiteered Rs. 6,88,770 for the period 27.07.2018-31.10.2018 and directed the respondent to deposit that profiteered amount into the Consumer Welfare Fund, to be apportioned equally between the Centre and States. The Tribunal held that the statutory provision imposing interest at 18% on profiteered amounts is not applicable retrospectively; it operates only from the date the amending rule came into force (post-28.06.2019), and therefore, because the profiteering occurred prior thereto, the respondent was not directed to pay interest. The application was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
