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 dominant issue was whether an assessment framed for FY 2024-2025 pursuant to a show cause notice issued under s.74, instead of the applicable s.74A, was legally sustainable. The Court held that issuance of the notice and consequential assessment under s.74 lacked authority of law where s.74A governed the period; therefore, the assessment order was set aside. To avoid futile remand and limitation complications, the Court directed that the existing notice be treated as a notice under s.74A, required the taxpayer to file a reply on that basis, and ordered adjudication afresh on merits. - HC
The dominant issue was whether an assessment framed for FY 2024-2025 pursuant to a show cause notice issued under s.74, instead of the applicable s.74A, was legally sustainable. The Court held that issuance of the notice and consequential assessment under s.74 lacked authority of law where s.74A governed the period; therefore, the assessment order was set aside. To avoid futile remand and limitation complications, the Court directed that the existing notice be treated as a notice under s.74A, required the taxpayer to file a reply on that basis, and ordered adjudication afresh on merits. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
