Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 permits the Central Government to direct rectification of a newly registered company's name where it is identical with or too nearly resembles a previously registered company's name. Information supplied by an aggrieved existing company may support the Government's formation of that opinion without converting the matter into proceedings under Section 16(1)(b). The note records that similar names used by companies operating in the same DNA-testing field justified the rectification direction. It further records that the High Court treated the direction as valid and within jurisdiction, and dismissed the challenge.
Section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 permits the Central Government to direct rectification of a newly registered company's name where it is identical with or too nearly resembles a previously registered company's name. Information supplied by an aggrieved existing company may support the Government's formation of that opinion without converting the matter into proceedings under Section 16(1)(b). The note records that similar names used by companies operating in the same DNA-testing field justified the rectification direction. It further records that the High Court treated the direction as valid and within jurisdiction, and dismissed the challenge.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.