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...
HC held that the petition is maintainable and that issuance of a fresh demand on identical grounds previously examined under Section 61 is impermissible. The court construed Section 61(2) as creating an embargo on further demands, including those under Section 73, where the taxpayer's explanation was accepted; Section 73 contains no non-obstante provision to override Section 61(2). Consequently, the show-cause notice issued under Section 73 and the consequential adjudication were vitiated. The impugned SCN dated 29 May 2024 and the resultant order dated 28 Aug 2024 are quashed, and the petition is disposed of with the petitioner granted relief.
HC held that the petition is maintainable and that issuance of a fresh demand on identical grounds previously examined under Section 61 is impermissible. The court construed Section 61(2) as creating an embargo on further demands, including those under Section 73, where the taxpayer's explanation was accepted; Section 73 contains no non-obstante provision to override Section 61(2). Consequently, the show-cause notice issued under Section 73 and the consequential adjudication were vitiated. The impugned SCN dated 29 May 2024 and the resultant order dated 28 Aug 2024 are quashed, and the petition is disposed of with the petitioner granted relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.