Timing mismatch in income recognition requires verification whether receipts were already taxed in an earlier year; matter remitted for fresh examinat...
FOB transaction value and export incentives: customs valuation cannot override contractual export benefits or support confiscation without valid proof...
An insolvency application filed in the name of a company that had already amalgamated and ceased to exist was held not maintainable because the applicant lacked any subsisting juristic existence on the date of institution. The earlier scheme approving amalgamation had dissolved the transferor company without winding up, and a later order on the effective date did not revive juristic status in the name used for the Section 9 filing. In the absence of material showing that the named applicant continued in law when proceedings were initiated, dismissal of the company petition as not maintainable was affirmed.
An insolvency application filed in the name of a company that had already amalgamated and ceased to exist was held not maintainable because the applicant lacked any subsisting juristic existence on the date of institution. The earlier scheme approving amalgamation had dissolved the transferor company without winding up, and a later order on the effective date did not revive juristic status in the name used for the Section 9 filing. In the absence of material showing that the named applicant continued in law when proceedings were initiated, dismissal of the company petition as not maintainable was affirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.