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...
Reason to believe as an essential ingredient for imposing a penalty under section 112(b) is examined, with emphasis on corroboration failures and circumstantial indicators permitting an inference of prior knowledge rather than innocent carriage; the account's unverifiable intermediary, non traceable contact details and voluntary no objection to seizure supported that inference, sustaining the legal basis for penalty. The article also explains that judicial discretion may moderate penalty quantum on humanitarian and equitable grounds where confiscation and prosecution remain in place, resulting in reduced monetary penalties.
Reason to believe as an essential ingredient for imposing a penalty under section 112(b) is examined, with emphasis on corroboration failures and circumstantial indicators permitting an inference of prior knowledge rather than innocent carriage; the account's unverifiable intermediary, non traceable contact details and voluntary no objection to seizure supported that inference, sustaining the legal basis for penalty. The article also explains that judicial discretion may moderate penalty quantum on humanitarian and equitable grounds where confiscation and prosecution remain in place, resulting in reduced monetary penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
