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...
A first appellate order that merely reproduces the parties' submissions and the Assessing Officer's findings, and then reverses the assessment in a few lines by relying on another case, is inadequate because reasons are essential for appellate scrutiny and for showing application of mind to facts and law. Where the CIT(A) does not give effective adjudication, remand for fresh decision is appropriate; the Tribunal need not substitute itself as the primary appellate forum simply because it is the last fact-finding authority. Reliance on Arvind Kumar Jaiswal was found inapposite on these facts, and the remand to the CIT(A) was upheld.
A first appellate order that merely reproduces the parties' submissions and the Assessing Officer's findings, and then reverses the assessment in a few lines by relying on another case, is inadequate because reasons are essential for appellate scrutiny and for showing application of mind to facts and law. Where the CIT(A) does not give effective adjudication, remand for fresh decision is appropriate; the Tribunal need not substitute itself as the primary appellate forum simply because it is the last fact-finding authority. Reliance on Arvind Kumar Jaiswal was found inapposite on these facts, and the remand to the CIT(A) was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.