Back
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
SH. ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ, MS. REENA SINHA PURI, JJ
Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(3), New Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Companies – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. roc's lack of objection to restoration. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. conditions for tax recovery from directors. (Para 4) |
| 3. judicial precedents on section 179. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. supreme court's brief order on tax recovery. (Para 7) |
| 5. conditions for director's liability. (Para 8) |
| 6. public interest in restoring company name. (Para 9) |
| 7. final order to restore company name. (Para 10) |
ORAL ORDER
The prayer made in the captioned appeal reads thus:-
“(a) To pass an order restoring the name of the Respondent Company in the Register of the Registrar of Companies;
(b) To Quash the order/notification of the Ld. ROC which removed the name of the Respondent Company from the Register of Companies;
(c) To grant an ad-interim stay on the operation of the impugned order/notification of the ROC.”
2. The Ld. Counsel for R-1 i.e. RoC submitted that he has no objection to the prayer made in the appeal.
3. As can be seen from order dated 19.12.2024 a semblance could develop that when the steps can be taken by Income Tax Department regarding Income Tax dues in terms of provisions of Section 179 of Income Tax Act, then whether there should be any need to restore a striked of company to the Register of Compani
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
