Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court examined the scope of judicial review u/s 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 regarding the Central Government's sanction for an investigation by the SFIO. The court held that SFIO investigation on transactions already addressed u/s 66 of the IBC would amount to double jeopardy. It emphasized the necessity of public interest for such investigations and found no such element in this case. The court noted that the company's functions were halted due to CIRP and pending liquidation, indicating no public interest or prima facie case for the investigation. The court ruled the sanction as arbitrary, illegal, and lacking a reasoned order, thus setting it aside and quashing any actions taken based on it.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court examined the scope of judicial review u/s 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 regarding the Central Government's sanction for an investigation by the SFIO. The court held that SFIO investigation on transactions already addressed u/s 66 of the IBC would amount to double jeopardy. It emphasized the necessity of public interest for such investigations and found no such element in this case. The court noted that the company's functions were halted due to CIRP and pending liquidation, indicating no public interest or prima facie case for the investigation. The court ruled the sanction as arbitrary, illegal, and lacking a reasoned order, thus setting it aside and quashing any actions taken based on it.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
