Regulatory consolidation for investment advisers: SEBI issues master circular consolidating guidance and prescribing compliance, reporting, fees and s...
Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
The Company Court's jurisdiction was treated as surviving after a winding-up order, because post-winding-up arrangements that displaced the Official Liquidator's control could still be examined and, if necessary, undone under the court's inherent powers and the Companies Act, 1956. The challenge based on delay was not held to be fatal at this stage, as the alleged fraud and continuing acts were treated prima facie as giving rise to a continuing cause of action, leaving limitation for final determination. Ad interim stay was refused on balance of convenience, absence of a meaningful change in circumstances, and judicial propriety.
The Company Court's jurisdiction was treated as surviving after a winding-up order, because post-winding-up arrangements that displaced the Official Liquidator's control could still be examined and, if necessary, undone under the court's inherent powers and the Companies Act, 1956. The challenge based on delay was not held to be fatal at this stage, as the alleged fraud and continuing acts were treated prima facie as giving rise to a continuing cause of action, leaving limitation for final determination. Ad interim stay was refused on balance of convenience, absence of a meaningful change in circumstances, and judicial propriety.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.