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...
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.