Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
