Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
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 
