Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 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 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 
