Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Successful appeal restores company's name illegally struck off under Companies Act, 1956. Restoration subject to compliance. The appeal against the striking off of a company's name under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 was successful. The Tribunal declared the striking ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Successful appeal restores company's name illegally struck off under Companies Act, 1956. Restoration subject to compliance.
The appeal against the striking off of a company's name under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 was successful. The Tribunal declared the striking off as illegal and ordered the company's restoration to the Register of Companies. This restoration was subject to fulfilling outstanding document filings, payment of fees, charges, costs, and a contribution to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. The Income Tax Department's requests for proceedings attendance and asset details were also addressed in the judgment.
Issues: Appeal against striking off company's name under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 1956.
Analysis: The appeal was filed against the order of striking off the company's name by the Respondent under Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. The Appellant argued that the company was incorporated as a Private Limited Company and had its registered office in New Delhi. The company's share capital, main objects, and details of operations were presented. The Respondent initiated the striking off action due to the company's failure to file Annual Returns and Balance Sheets for multiple financial years.
The Appellant contended that the company was active and operational during the period of striking off, but due to inadvertence, the necessary filings were not made. Evidence such as financial statements, agreements, and tax returns were provided to support the claim of ongoing operations. The Respondent's stance was that the company did not carry out any operations for two preceding financial years and did not obtain the status of a Dormant Company as per Section 455 of the Companies Act, 2013.
The Income Tax Department's submission highlighted issues related to the company's tax filings and alleged involvement in accommodation entry transactions. The Department requested the directors to attend proceedings and provide asset details, along with filing an undertaking regarding asset sales. The Tribunal considered the grounds under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013, and the Appellant's evidence of continued operations to restore the company's name.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, declaring the striking off of the company's name as illegal and ordering its restoration to the Register of Companies. The restoration was subject to fulfilling outstanding document filings, payment of fees, charges, and costs, including a contribution to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. The Income Tax Department's requests for proceedings attendance and asset details were also addressed in the order.
The judgment concluded by disposing of the appeal and directing the service of the order to the involved parties.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
of 
TaxTMI 
