Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
The dominant issue was whether the CLB had jurisdiction to condone a 249-day delay in an appeal under s.58(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, including whether s.433 (enabling application of the Limitation Act, 1963) could apply retrospectively to CLB proceedings. The Court held that, during the interregnum before 01.06.2016, the statute did not empower the CLB to apply s.5 of the Limitation Act, and its limited "court-like" status and procedural regulations could not be expanded into a power to extend statutory limitation. Section 58(3) was construed as mandatory; the High Court's affirmance was set aside and the appeal allowed. - SC
The dominant issue was whether the CLB had jurisdiction to condone a 249-day delay in an appeal under s.58(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, including whether s.433 (enabling application of the Limitation Act, 1963) could apply retrospectively to CLB proceedings. The Court held that, during the interregnum before 01.06.2016, the statute did not empower the CLB to apply s.5 of the Limitation Act, and its limited "court-like" status and procedural regulations could not be expanded into a power to extend statutory limitation. Section 58(3) was construed as mandatory; the High Court's affirmance was set aside and the appeal allowed. - SC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
