Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
Shifting of registered office under Rule 30(9) was upheld where the petitioner's appeal challenged only grant of interest on pre- and intra CIRP dues and no stay of the adjudicating order was obtained; the court applied the principle that mere pendency of an appeal does not suspend compliance absent an appellate stay and noted prior tribunal clarification that pendency is not a ground to avoid statutory requirements. The High Court concluded the Regional Director lawfully permitted relocation, finding no prejudice shown by the petitioners and that the second proviso of sub rule (9) did not bar consideration in these facts.
Shifting of registered office under Rule 30(9) was upheld where the petitioner's appeal challenged only grant of interest on pre- and intra CIRP dues and no stay of the adjudicating order was obtained; the court applied the principle that mere pendency of an appeal does not suspend compliance absent an appellate stay and noted prior tribunal clarification that pendency is not a ground to avoid statutory requirements. The High Court concluded the Regional Director lawfully permitted relocation, finding no prejudice shown by the petitioners and that the second proviso of sub rule (9) did not bar consideration in these facts.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.