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...
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.