Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
Transfer-pricing benchmarking and capital-receipt principles sustained taxpayer relief, while unsupported property-advance write-offs remained disallo...
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 
