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...
Redevelopment hardship compensation received as a predetermined lump-sum for shifting, re-shifting, demolition-related inconvenience and shared common areas was held to be a capital receipt, not consideration for transfer of property rights, so the addition was deleted. The first appellate authority's direction to compute capital gain on the additional 56% carpet area was treated as an enhancement of income; because no prior show-cause notice or opportunity under section 251(2) was shown, that enhancement was set aside and the issue was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee.
Redevelopment hardship compensation received as a predetermined lump-sum for shifting, re-shifting, demolition-related inconvenience and shared common areas was held to be a capital receipt, not consideration for transfer of property rights, so the addition was deleted. The first appellate authority's direction to compute capital gain on the additional 56% carpet area was treated as an enhancement of income; because no prior show-cause notice or opportunity under section 251(2) was shown, that enhancement was set aside and the issue was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.