Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
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 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
