Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
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...
Recovery of tax arrears from the Former director of the Company - Attachment of Bank accounts - DIN of the petitioner got disqualified under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 - The High Court found that the attachment order was issued without proper consideration of the petitioner's status and without affording them an opportunity to present their case. The court held that this violated the petitioner's rights under Article 14 and 300A of the Constitution. - The High Court accepted the petitioner's argument that they had resigned from their directorship before the relevant period. As such, the court ruled that the petitioner could not be held liable for the company's tax dues during that period.
Recovery of tax arrears from the Former director of the Company - Attachment of Bank accounts - DIN of the petitioner got disqualified under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 - The High Court found that the attachment order was issued without proper consideration of the petitioner's status and without affording them an opportunity to present their case. The court held that this violated the petitioner's rights under Article 14 and 300A of the Constitution. - The High Court accepted the petitioner's argument that they had resigned from their directorship before the relevant period. As such, the court ruled that the petitioner could not be held liable for the company's tax dues during that period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
