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...
Assessment under section 153C was held time-barred because, in a joint warrant situation, limitation under section 153B had to be computed with reference to the last panchanama in the assessee's own case; the later panchanama of another person could not extend time, and the assessments were quashed. Jurisdiction under section 153C also failed because the satisfaction note was generic and did not record year-wise nexus between seized material and alleged undisclosed income, making the assumption of jurisdiction invalid. The addition for alleged commission income was deleted because it rested only on uncorroborated third-party statements, with no independent incriminating material and no cross-examination opportunity.
Assessment under section 153C was held time-barred because, in a joint warrant situation, limitation under section 153B had to be computed with reference to the last panchanama in the assessee's own case; the later panchanama of another person could not extend time, and the assessments were quashed. Jurisdiction under section 153C also failed because the satisfaction note was generic and did not record year-wise nexus between seized material and alleged undisclosed income, making the assumption of jurisdiction invalid. The addition for alleged commission income was deleted because it rested only on uncorroborated third-party statements, with no independent incriminating material and no cross-examination opportunity.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.