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...
Section 249(4)(b) could not be used to reject the quantum appeal where the record did not show taxable income in India and, on the assessee's consistent case, no obligation to pay advance tax arose. The Tribunal noted that the addition stemmed only from an unexplained source of investment in immovable property, not from returned or admitted income. The Commissioner (Appeals) therefore erred in dismissing the appeal in limine. The quantum matter was restored to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after due opportunity, and the consequential penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also restored for fresh consideration.
Section 249(4)(b) could not be used to reject the quantum appeal where the record did not show taxable income in India and, on the assessee's consistent case, no obligation to pay advance tax arose. The Tribunal noted that the addition stemmed only from an unexplained source of investment in immovable property, not from returned or admitted income. The Commissioner (Appeals) therefore erred in dismissing the appeal in limine. The quantum matter was restored to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after due opportunity, and the consequential penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also restored for fresh consideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
