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...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
The High Court rejected the appellants' application for release of the amounts deposited by the respondent company. The appellants' contention that their petition was prior in time, entitling them to preferential payment from the deposited amount, was unmerited. Since the Company Court had decided to proceed with winding up the company, the appellants would have to stand with other creditors for recovering dividends u/s 529 of the Act. Their petition was rendered infructuous once the winding up order was passed, as a company can be wound up only once. The appellants' application seeking withdrawal of the deposited amount in their disposed petition was not maintainable, as they could not have better rights than other creditors over the company's properties. The appeal was disposed of.
The High Court rejected the appellants' application for release of the amounts deposited by the respondent company. The appellants' contention that their petition was prior in time, entitling them to preferential payment from the deposited amount, was unmerited. Since the Company Court had decided to proceed with winding up the company, the appellants would have to stand with other creditors for recovering dividends u/s 529 of the Act. Their petition was rendered infructuous once the winding up order was passed, as a company can be wound up only once. The appellants' application seeking withdrawal of the deposited amount in their disposed petition was not maintainable, as they could not have better rights than other creditors over the company's properties. The appeal was disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
