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 court addressed whether parallel proceedings under Sections 73/74 and Section 122 (penalty) create impermissible overlap and whether the show-cause notice could proceed pending resolution of a state appeal; it declined to decide the overlap on merits but ordered the state Appellate Authority to conclude the pending appeal within a limited period - outcome: appeal to be disposed within three weeks and the Central Authorities may proceed with the show-cause notice only after that conclusion. The petitioner may thereafter file a reply raising the overlap and reliance on the CBIC circular; remedies preserved. - HC
The court addressed whether parallel proceedings under Sections 73/74 and Section 122 (penalty) create impermissible overlap and whether the show-cause notice could proceed pending resolution of a state appeal; it declined to decide the overlap on merits but ordered the state Appellate Authority to conclude the pending appeal within a limited period - outcome: appeal to be disposed within three weeks and the Central Authorities may proceed with the show-cause notice only after that conclusion. The petitioner may thereafter file a reply raising the overlap and reliance on the CBIC circular; remedies preserved. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
