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...
Reassessment validity depended on two jurisdictional defects: the sanction under section 151 was held invalid because the escapement figure shifted from Rs. 1,11,37,000 to Rs. 66,13,961 and then to Rs. 27,00,000, showing non-application of mind at the sanction stage. The Tribunal also held that reopening beyond three years was unsustainable because the surviving alleged escapement was below the Rs. 50 lakh threshold required for extended limitation under section 149(1). On these grounds, the reassessment was held untenable and the remaining issues were left open.
Reassessment validity depended on two jurisdictional defects: the sanction under section 151 was held invalid because the escapement figure shifted from Rs. 1,11,37,000 to Rs. 66,13,961 and then to Rs. 27,00,000, showing non-application of mind at the sanction stage. The Tribunal also held that reopening beyond three years was unsustainable because the surviving alleged escapement was below the Rs. 50 lakh threshold required for extended limitation under section 149(1). On these grounds, the reassessment was held untenable and the remaining issues were left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.