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...
Under Section 75(4), an adverse determination could not be made without affording the taxpayer a hearing, and the obligation remained even if the response to the show cause notice was filed late. The High Court found that no personal hearing had been given and the alleged communication relied on by the State was not available on the portal, so the assessment order under Section 73(9) suffered from breach of the mandatory hearing requirement. The order was set aside, and the officer was directed to restore limited portal access, accept the response, and decide the matter afresh after granting hearing in accordance with law.
Under Section 75(4), an adverse determination could not be made without affording the taxpayer a hearing, and the obligation remained even if the response to the show cause notice was filed late. The High Court found that no personal hearing had been given and the alleged communication relied on by the State was not available on the portal, so the assessment order under Section 73(9) suffered from breach of the mandatory hearing requirement. The order was set aside, and the officer was directed to restore limited portal access, accept the response, and decide the matter afresh after granting hearing in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.