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...
HC upheld the RD's suo motu jurisdiction under Section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, holding that it extends beyond trademark infringement and may be exercised whenever a company's name is identical with, or too nearly resembles, that of an existing company. Applying the "structural and phonetic resemblance" test, HC found the petitioner's and respondent no. 2's corporate names substantially identical, differing only in the first word, and therefore falling within the statutory embargo. HC held that the RD need not establish likelihood of deception or confusion, and that no perversity or jurisdictional error was shown. The impugned order directing change of name was sustained and the writ petition was dismissed.
HC upheld the RD's suo motu jurisdiction under Section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, holding that it extends beyond trademark infringement and may be exercised whenever a company's name is identical with, or too nearly resembles, that of an existing company. Applying the "structural and phonetic resemblance" test, HC found the petitioner's and respondent no. 2's corporate names substantially identical, differing only in the first word, and therefore falling within the statutory embargo. HC held that the RD need not establish likelihood of deception or confusion, and that no perversity or jurisdictional error was shown. The impugned order directing change of name was sustained and the writ petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
