The ruling clarifies that limitation for appointing an arbitrator starts only when negotiations fail and arbitration is clearly invoked. Mere existence of disputes does not trigger limitation.
The court held that tax authorities cannot rely on earlier findings already set aside by appellate bodies. Each Section 197 application must be examined independently.
The Registrar penalised a company for missing mandatory disclosures in share allotment filings. The order clarifies that even inadvertent procedural lapses attract penalties, though relief may apply to eligible start-ups.
The order holds that missing mandatory disclosures in share issue filings violate Section 62 read with Rule 13. Even inadvertent procedural lapses can trigger penalties under the residual provision of the Companies Act.
The adjudicating authority held that filing an AOC-4 with incorrect particulars attracts penalty even if the error is later admitted and rectified. Administrative correction does not nullify the completed contravention under the Companies Act.
The issue was whether final assessment orders passed under the DRP route exceeded statutory time limits. The tribunal held that assessments beyond Section 144C read with Section 153 are void for limitation.
The issue is whether gold’s sharp rise is sudden or structural. The data shows a steady climb driven by global uncertainty, making gold a long-term safe-haven rather than a short-term spike.
The issue was rationalising which debt-listed entities should face enhanced compliance. SEBI held that only larger issuers with Rs. 5,000 crore or more in listed debt should be covered, easing the burden on mid-sized entities.
The dispute concerned the correct terminal point for computing six assessment years under section 153C. The Tribunal held that using the search date instead of the satisfaction date vitiated the entire assessment.
The issue was whether export refunds can be denied when the transferor company transfers only part of ITC after amalgamation. The Court held that partial ITC transfer is permissible and refund cannot be denied without statutory backing.
