Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The NCLAT held that the limitation period under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, allowing up to twenty years for a company, member, creditor, or workman to apply for restoration of a company's name struck off the Register of Companies, applies when a member files the appeal. The appellant company, owning substantial property valued at Rs. 6 crores, demonstrated that non-restoration would cause irreparable loss and contradict public policy. The Tribunal found the NCLT's application of a shorter limitation period incorrect and deemed it just and equitable to restore the company's name. Consequently, the impugned NCLT order was set aside, and the ROC was directed to restore the company's name upon fulfillment of requisite compliances. The appeal was allowed.
The NCLAT held that the limitation period under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, allowing up to twenty years for a company, member, creditor, or workman to apply for restoration of a company's name struck off the Register of Companies, applies when a member files the appeal. The appellant company, owning substantial property valued at Rs. 6 crores, demonstrated that non-restoration would cause irreparable loss and contradict public policy. The Tribunal found the NCLT's application of a shorter limitation period incorrect and deemed it just and equitable to restore the company's name. Consequently, the impugned NCLT order was set aside, and the ROC was directed to restore the company's name upon fulfillment of requisite compliances. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
