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...
The High Court declined to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction to quash a show cause notice where parallel proceedings against multiple accused were ongoing, reasoning that premature interference could impede inquiries; the writ petition was dismissed without merit adjudication and no quashing was granted. The court did not resolve the petitioner's limitation/time-bar plea but directed the adjudicating authority to consider the petitioner's explanation and relied precedents (including the cited apex decision) while conducting further proceedings, leaving the substantive limitation question open for decision by the respondents-authority in accordance with law.
The High Court declined to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction to quash a show cause notice where parallel proceedings against multiple accused were ongoing, reasoning that premature interference could impede inquiries; the writ petition was dismissed without merit adjudication and no quashing was granted. The court did not resolve the petitioner's limitation/time-bar plea but directed the adjudicating authority to consider the petitioner's explanation and relied precedents (including the cited apex decision) while conducting further proceedings, leaving the substantive limitation question open for decision by the respondents-authority in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
