Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The NCLAT upheld the impugned order dated 02.04.2025, affirming it as a continuation of prior directions rather than a review or recall prohibited under Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal found no justification for conducting a Secretarial Audit given the absence of evidence that financial statements were ever filed with the ROC for the period 2015-2023. The appellant failed to produce any material disputing the PCS report, which confirmed that the company was non-operational and thus ineligible for such audit. The appellant's reliance on pleadings without judicial scrutiny or evidential support was rejected. Consequently, the order dispensing with the Secretarial Audit was deemed judicious and based on a proper appreciation of the record. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety for lack of merit.
The NCLAT upheld the impugned order dated 02.04.2025, affirming it as a continuation of prior directions rather than a review or recall prohibited under Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal found no justification for conducting a Secretarial Audit given the absence of evidence that financial statements were ever filed with the ROC for the period 2015-2023. The appellant failed to produce any material disputing the PCS report, which confirmed that the company was non-operational and thus ineligible for such audit. The appellant's reliance on pleadings without judicial scrutiny or evidential support was rejected. Consequently, the order dispensing with the Secretarial Audit was deemed judicious and based on a proper appreciation of the record. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety for lack of merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
