Allocation of registration charges: contractual clause overriding statutory presumption allowed as deduction against capital gain after unrebutted doc...
Expenditure tied to investments yielding exempt income restricted to attributable costs; broader disallowance disallowed and adjustments to WDV and mi...
Admissibility of Investigative Statements invalidated reliance on coerced emails and valuation redetermination, resulting in set aside of penalties an...
Classification of printed technical documents: specific Chapter 49.01 entry prevails, enabling claimed customs exemptions for imported manuals and rep...
Page of 4816
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5281 to 5300 of 96301 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A High Court held that the second proviso to Rule 30(9) of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014 imposes a strict bar on shifting a company's registered office where an appeal against the approved resolution plan is pending, and that Section 238 of the IBC does not override this restriction. The Court read the proviso as creating an independent threshold, found the Regional Director acted beyond jurisdiction in permitting the shift, and set aside the Regional Director's order as well as the Single Judge's order. It also held that the appellants could maintain the writ petition because they were heard in the proceedings, were aggrieved by the impugned order, and had no efficacious alternative remedy.
A High Court held that the second proviso to Rule 30(9) of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014 imposes a strict bar on shifting a company's registered office where an appeal against the approved resolution plan is pending, and that Section 238 of the IBC does not override this restriction. The Court read the proviso as creating an independent threshold, found the Regional Director acted beyond jurisdiction in permitting the shift, and set aside the Regional Director's order as well as the Single Judge's order. It also held that the appellants could maintain the writ petition because they were heard in the proceedings, were aggrieved by the impugned order, and had no efficacious alternative remedy.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
