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...
Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 was examined: the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to revenue were not met because the Assessing Officer issued detailed queries, obtained submissions and documents, and applied his mind before accepting returned income. Explanation 2(a) did not apply as inquiries were made. Clause (d) of Explanation 2 could not be invoked since the AO adopted a plausible view supported by High Court precedents and the Supreme Court decision relied on was distinguishable on its facts. The Tribunal set aside the Principal Commissioner's revision order and allowed the assessee's appeal.
Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 was examined: the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to revenue were not met because the Assessing Officer issued detailed queries, obtained submissions and documents, and applied his mind before accepting returned income. Explanation 2(a) did not apply as inquiries were made. Clause (d) of Explanation 2 could not be invoked since the AO adopted a plausible view supported by High Court precedents and the Supreme Court decision relied on was distinguishable on its facts. The Tribunal set aside the Principal Commissioner's revision order and allowed the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.