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...
HC held that two assessment orders could not survive for the same tax period and same discrepancies against the same assessee. One impugned order for 2021-2022 was therefore quashed as duplicative, while the Department was left free to proceed under the other order, which also covered an additional discrepancy. Separately, an ex parte assessment was set aside on equitable grounds because the assessee claimed lack of awareness of the notice after GST registration cancellation, the merits had been explained, and a substantial part of the disputed tax had already been recovered. That matter was remanded for fresh consideration with a direction to file reply and documents, and the bank attachment was lifted.
HC held that two assessment orders could not survive for the same tax period and same discrepancies against the same assessee. One impugned order for 2021-2022 was therefore quashed as duplicative, while the Department was left free to proceed under the other order, which also covered an additional discrepancy. Separately, an ex parte assessment was set aside on equitable grounds because the assessee claimed lack of awareness of the notice after GST registration cancellation, the merits had been explained, and a substantial part of the disputed tax had already been recovered. That matter was remanded for fresh consideration with a direction to file reply and documents, and the bank attachment was lifted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.