Regulatory consolidation for investment advisers: SEBI issues master circular consolidating guidance and prescribing compliance, reporting, fees and s...
Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
The dominant issue was whether the struck-off company's name should be restored to the Register of Companies. Restoration was held justified on the "just and equitable" standard because the company had fixed assets generating rental income, expressed willingness to file all financial records and complete statutory compliances, and the tax authority had issued a no-objection to restoration. Consequently, the order refusing restoration was set aside and the company's name was directed to be restored in the ROC records subject to completion of requisite compliances, and the appeal was allowed. - NCLAT
The dominant issue was whether the struck-off company's name should be restored to the Register of Companies. Restoration was held justified on the "just and equitable" standard because the company had fixed assets generating rental income, expressed willingness to file all financial records and complete statutory compliances, and the tax authority had issued a no-objection to restoration. Consequently, the order refusing restoration was set aside and the company's name was directed to be restored in the ROC records subject to completion of requisite compliances, and the appeal was allowed. - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
