Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI • Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions • Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations • Issue-wise legal analysis • Practical arguments and supporting content • Professionally structured draft ready for further review.
Appeal successful: Company name restoration ordered after proving operational status. The appeal against the striking off of a company's name under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 was allowed by the Tribunal. The company provided ...
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.
Appeal successful: Company name restoration ordered after proving operational status.
The appeal against the striking off of a company's name under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 was allowed by the Tribunal. The company provided evidence of being operational, including audited financial statements and relevant certificates. The Tribunal found the company to be operational and not defunct, declaring the striking off as illegal. The company's name was ordered to be restored upon fulfilling necessary requirements, including filing outstanding documents, payment of fees, and completion of formalities. The appeal was allowed, and directions were given to serve a copy of the order to the parties involved.
Issues involved: Appeal against striking off company's name under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the order of striking off the company's name under Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013. The company provided details of its incorporation, authorized share capital, and main objects. 2. The Respondent struck off the company's name as it had not filed Annual Returns and Balance Sheets, indicating non-operation of the business. The company was struck off under Section 248 of the Act and relevant rules. 3. The Appellant presented evidence of being operational, including audited financial statements, bank statements, income tax returns, and relevant certificates/licenses. The ROC expressed no objection to restoring the company's name. 4. The grounds under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013, require the company to be in operation or show justifiable cause for restoration. The Tribunal has discretion to restore a company's name if it deems it justifiable. 5. Considering the evidence presented, the Tribunal found the company to be operational and not defunct. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, declaring the striking off as illegal and ordering the restoration of the company's name upon fulfilling necessary requirements. 6. The restoration was subject to filing outstanding documents with fees, payment to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund, and completion of formalities. The company's name would be restored as if it had not been struck off under Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013. 7. The appeal was allowed and disposed of accordingly, with directions to serve a copy of the order to the parties involved.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
