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...
Revision under section 263 was held unsustainable where the Assessing Officer had already initiated penalty proceedings, because the revisional authority could not invoke section 263 merely to substitute the penalty provision under which those proceedings were initiated. The Tribunal found that, once penalty action had been commenced, the assessment order could not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue on this ground alone. The foundation of the revisional order was therefore legally untenable, and the assessee succeeded.
Revision under section 263 was held unsustainable where the Assessing Officer had already initiated penalty proceedings, because the revisional authority could not invoke section 263 merely to substitute the penalty provision under which those proceedings were initiated. The Tribunal found that, once penalty action had been commenced, the assessment order could not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue on this ground alone. The foundation of the revisional order was therefore legally untenable, and the assessee succeeded.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.