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...
Once a return is filed in response to a notice under section 148, issuance of notice under section 143(2) is a mandatory statutory requirement; non-issuance is not a curable defect. The Tribunal held that the return could not be treated as non est merely because it was filed beyond the period mentioned in the reassessment notice, and read the amended provision harmoniously with the CBDT e-verification clarifications. Since no section 143(2) notice was issued after the return was filed, the reassessment was held bad in law, void ab initio, and quashed; the remaining grounds were left open.
Once a return is filed in response to a notice under section 148, issuance of notice under section 143(2) is a mandatory statutory requirement; non-issuance is not a curable defect. The Tribunal held that the return could not be treated as non est merely because it was filed beyond the period mentioned in the reassessment notice, and read the amended provision harmoniously with the CBDT e-verification clarifications. Since no section 143(2) notice was issued after the return was filed, the reassessment was held bad in law, void ab initio, and quashed; the remaining grounds were left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.