Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
The petition filed u/s 213(b) of the Companies Act, 2013 alleged that the business of the respondent companies was being conducted with intent to defraud creditors, members, or others, or for fraudulent or unlawful purposes, or oppressively. However, the averments were not supported by material documents to substantiate such allegations. The documents filed failed to corroborate the allegations of fraudulent or unlawful conduct by the respondent company. The petitioner failed to make a prima facie case u/s 213(b). Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the petition in limine for lack of sufficient evidence to warrant appointing an inspector to investigate the respondent companies' affairs.
The petition filed u/s 213(b) of the Companies Act, 2013 alleged that the business of the respondent companies was being conducted with intent to defraud creditors, members, or others, or for fraudulent or unlawful purposes, or oppressively. However, the averments were not supported by material documents to substantiate such allegations. The documents filed failed to corroborate the allegations of fraudulent or unlawful conduct by the respondent company. The petitioner failed to make a prima facie case u/s 213(b). Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the petition in limine for lack of sufficient evidence to warrant appointing an inspector to investigate the respondent companies' affairs.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
