IBC resolution plan immunity from money-laundering: corporate debtor removed as accused; cases continue against ex-directors, attached assets refunded...
Page of 4824
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7541 to 7560 of 96463 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A challenge to statutory summons under Section 131(1A) failed because mala fides were not proved by clear evidence, and the petitioner's reliance on later-produced material did not displace the prior TEP basis or the respondents' denial. The High Court also held that an Income Tax Officer authorised under the statutory scheme was competent to issue the summons, so no jurisdictional infirmity or colourable exercise of power was shown. It further accepted that, at the summons stage, the investigating authority was not required to disclose the detailed reasons, source of information, or scope of the ongoing inquiry, since confidentiality of an active tax investigation could be maintained without invalidating the summons.
A challenge to statutory summons under Section 131(1A) failed because mala fides were not proved by clear evidence, and the petitioner's reliance on later-produced material did not displace the prior TEP basis or the respondents' denial. The High Court also held that an Income Tax Officer authorised under the statutory scheme was competent to issue the summons, so no jurisdictional infirmity or colourable exercise of power was shown. It further accepted that, at the summons stage, the investigating authority was not required to disclose the detailed reasons, source of information, or scope of the ongoing inquiry, since confidentiality of an active tax investigation could be maintained without invalidating the summons.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
