Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
In proceedings under ss. 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013, the dominant issue was whether an interim stay order was vitiated for want of reasons. It was held that an interim order under Rules 11 and 32 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 is discretionary, requires only prima facie satisfaction, and is not a merits adjudication warranting elaborate reasoning; moreover, the order was passed after hearing and was not ex parte, and the cited sentencing jurisprudence was inapplicable. The appellant was relegated to seek relief by filing a stay-vacation application before the tribunal, and the appeals were dismissed for lack of merit. - NCLAT
In proceedings under ss. 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013, the dominant issue was whether an interim stay order was vitiated for want of reasons. It was held that an interim order under Rules 11 and 32 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 is discretionary, requires only prima facie satisfaction, and is not a merits adjudication warranting elaborate reasoning; moreover, the order was passed after hearing and was not ex parte, and the cited sentencing jurisprudence was inapplicable. The appellant was relegated to seek relief by filing a stay-vacation application before the tribunal, and the appeals were dismissed for lack of merit. - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
