Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Seeking restoration of name of the company on ROC - failure to file the Financial Statement and Annual Returns since incorporation - Section 252 of Companies Act, 2013 - The Appellate Tribunal noted that while the appellant had filed financial statements until 2015-16, there was a gap in filings for the subsequent years. However, the appellant had produced independent auditor reports for the missing years, demonstrating substantial assets and indicating a bonafide intention to comply. - Considering the appellant's substantial assets, the Tribunal found it just and equitable to restore the company's name to the Register of Companies. They emphasized that the appellant was not a shell company or engaged in fund siphoning, and the restoration would not prejudice the Registrar of Companies.
Seeking restoration of name of the company on ROC - failure to file the Financial Statement and Annual Returns since incorporation - Section 252 of Companies Act, 2013 - The Appellate Tribunal noted that while the appellant had filed financial statements until 2015-16, there was a gap in filings for the subsequent years. However, the appellant had produced independent auditor reports for the missing years, demonstrating substantial assets and indicating a bonafide intention to comply. - Considering the appellant's substantial assets, the Tribunal found it just and equitable to restore the company's name to the Register of Companies. They emphasized that the appellant was not a shell company or engaged in fund siphoning, and the restoration would not prejudice the Registrar of Companies.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
