Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1141 to 1160 of 96176 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 4809 
Join Channel 
