Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
Reduction of share capital under Section 66 was examined for jurisdictional defects in appellate bench composition, procedural sufficiency of the statutory notice and disclosures, independence of the valuer, and the permissibility of applying a discount for lack of marketability (DLOM). The Court found no jurisdictional defect in the tribunal's bench composition and declined to disturb the tribunal orders. It held Section 66 does not require inclusion of a valuation report in the notice where the offered price and reports are available for inspection, rejected a claim of demonstrable valuer bias, and accepted that DLOM and the valuation were not manifestly unreasonable, so the reduction stands.
Reduction of share capital under Section 66 was examined for jurisdictional defects in appellate bench composition, procedural sufficiency of the statutory notice and disclosures, independence of the valuer, and the permissibility of applying a discount for lack of marketability (DLOM). The Court found no jurisdictional defect in the tribunal's bench composition and declined to disturb the tribunal orders. It held Section 66 does not require inclusion of a valuation report in the notice where the offered price and reports are available for inspection, rejected a claim of demonstrable valuer bias, and accepted that DLOM and the valuation were not manifestly unreasonable, so the reduction stands.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.