Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The HC held that the Registrar of Companies (ROC) failed to follow proper procedure under the second proviso to Section 252 of Companies Act, 2013 for reviving a struck-off company. The provision requires the ROC to file an application before the NCLT within three years from the dissolution order if a company was struck off inadvertently or based on incorrect information. In this case, the ROC neither filed such application nor acted within the three-year period from the January 11, 2016 dissolution order. Consequently, the revival of the company was deemed improper, and the court directed the ROC to strike off the company's name from the Register of Companies and take all necessary legal steps. Petition allowed.
The HC held that the Registrar of Companies (ROC) failed to follow proper procedure under the second proviso to Section 252 of Companies Act, 2013 for reviving a struck-off company. The provision requires the ROC to file an application before the NCLT within three years from the dissolution order if a company was struck off inadvertently or based on incorrect information. In this case, the ROC neither filed such application nor acted within the three-year period from the January 11, 2016 dissolution order. Consequently, the revival of the company was deemed improper, and the court directed the ROC to strike off the company's name from the Register of Companies and take all necessary legal steps. Petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
