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...
The HC set aside the impugned order rejecting the appeal as time-barred by 23 days and remitted the matter to the appellate authority for fresh adjudication within a reasonable time. The court found the appellate authority erred in adopting a hyper-technical approach where the appellant, owing to bona fide confusion and portal/upload irregularities (including non-upload of the order summary and issuance of appeal number on physical filing), could not be deemed to have wilfully delayed filing; medical infirmity of the appellant was noted. The HC directed the appellate authority to entertain the appeal in accordance with Rule 108(3) provisos and applicable law and to decide afresh.
The HC set aside the impugned order rejecting the appeal as time-barred by 23 days and remitted the matter to the appellate authority for fresh adjudication within a reasonable time. The court found the appellate authority erred in adopting a hyper-technical approach where the appellant, owing to bona fide confusion and portal/upload irregularities (including non-upload of the order summary and issuance of appeal number on physical filing), could not be deemed to have wilfully delayed filing; medical infirmity of the appellant was noted. The HC directed the appellate authority to entertain the appeal in accordance with Rule 108(3) provisos and applicable law and to decide afresh.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
