Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Appointment of the Appellant as the liquidator - The Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to comply with Regulation 31A(11) by not submitting the mandatory written consent on Form AA of Schedule II before the Adjudicating Authority or the SCC. Despite the alleged consent dated 29.08.2023, there was no evidence of its submission to the relevant authorities. - The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision to appoint Respondent No. 2 as the liquidator, citing the authority's power to replace the liquidator for justifiable reasons. - Agreeing with the Respondent, the Tribunal concluded that the Appellant lacked locus standi to file the appeal as they were merely a proposed/prospective liquidator without inherent rights to the appointment.
Appointment of the Appellant as the liquidator - The Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to comply with Regulation 31A(11) by not submitting the mandatory written consent on Form AA of Schedule II before the Adjudicating Authority or the SCC. Despite the alleged consent dated 29.08.2023, there was no evidence of its submission to the relevant authorities. - The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision to appoint Respondent No. 2 as the liquidator, citing the authority's power to replace the liquidator for justifiable reasons. - Agreeing with the Respondent, the Tribunal concluded that the Appellant lacked locus standi to file the appeal as they were merely a proposed/prospective liquidator without inherent rights to the appointment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
