Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4807 
Join Channel 
