https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=9348 The article argues that appellate procedure mandates framing of Substantial Question of Law when parties are heard and that dismissal without such framing is procedurally improper. It alleges that both the High Court and Supreme Court orders failed to articulate or answer the required substantial questions, and that lower authorities reached adverse factual conclusions based on conjecture about share-price movements while disregarding primary documentary evidence, market surveillance mechanisms and absence of proof of cash-for-cheque exchanges. en-us Wed, 15 Jul 2020 10:17:44 +0530 Wed, 15 Jul 2020 10:17:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=9348 The article argues that appellate procedure mandates framing of Substantial Question of Law when parties are heard and that dismissal without such framing is procedurally improper. It alleges that both the High Court and Supreme Court orders failed to articulate or answer the required substantial questions, and that lower authorities reached adverse factual conclusions based on conjecture about share-price movements while disregarding primary documentary evidence, market surveillance mechanisms and absence of proof of cash-for-cheque exchanges. Articles Income Tax Wed, 15 Jul 2020 10:17:44 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=9348