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 ITAT allowed the taxpayer's appeal, holding that payments of lease rentals made to the statutory development authority during the relevant fiscal year were not subject to deduction of tax at source under section 194-I prior to the date on which higher courts declared the provision to apply prospectively. The Tribunal found that the assessing authorities erred in treating the taxpayer as an "assessee in default" and in issuing orders under sections 201(1)/201(1A). Pursuant to the appellate and superior court pronouncements giving prospective effect to TDS applicability, the orders of the lower authorities and the CIT(A) were set aside and the taxpayer's appeal was allowed.
The ITAT allowed the taxpayer's appeal, holding that payments of lease rentals made to the statutory development authority during the relevant fiscal year were not subject to deduction of tax at source under section 194-I prior to the date on which higher courts declared the provision to apply prospectively. The Tribunal found that the assessing authorities erred in treating the taxpayer as an "assessee in default" and in issuing orders under sections 201(1)/201(1A). Pursuant to the appellate and superior court pronouncements giving prospective effect to TDS applicability, the orders of the lower authorities and the CIT(A) were set aside and the taxpayer's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
