Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
A reopening notice issued under section 148 in the name of a company already struck off from the register is invalid because jurisdiction cannot be assumed over a non-existent entity. Participation by an ex-director does not cure the defect, and the consequential reassessment order under section 144 read with section 147 falls with the invalid notice. Section 250 of the Companies Act, 2013 did not assist the Revenue because no subsisting liability or obligation of the struck-off company remained on the date of reopening. The notice and reassessment were quashed.
A reopening notice issued under section 148 in the name of a company already struck off from the register is invalid because jurisdiction cannot be assumed over a non-existent entity. Participation by an ex-director does not cure the defect, and the consequential reassessment order under section 144 read with section 147 falls with the invalid notice. Section 250 of the Companies Act, 2013 did not assist the Revenue because no subsisting liability or obligation of the struck-off company remained on the date of reopening. The notice and reassessment were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.