Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
