Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Page of 4782
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95636 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.