Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
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 4817 
Join Channel 
