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...
Petitioner alleges compliance with pre-deposit obligations at two appellate stages and seeks relief from recovery; court directed petitioner to make representation to GST authorities proving payment and allowed authorities to verify and call for clarifications. Any sum recovered in excess of the cumulative deposits required at the two appellate stages must be refunded. Court did not determine merits and left substantive decision to the GST authorities, who may examine evidence and take an informed decision on refund and stay-related consequences.
Petitioner alleges compliance with pre-deposit obligations at two appellate stages and seeks relief from recovery; court directed petitioner to make representation to GST authorities proving payment and allowed authorities to verify and call for clarifications. Any sum recovered in excess of the cumulative deposits required at the two appellate stages must be refunded. Court did not determine merits and left substantive decision to the GST authorities, who may examine evidence and take an informed decision on refund and stay-related consequences.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
