NCLT JUDGEMENT ON SECTION 248(1), 252(1)(3), 455 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 AND SECTION 144, 147, 271(1)(B), 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961

 

NAME		MOBILE NO.	E-MAIL I’D
RANJEET KUMAR		8383098478, 9667769795	rk@courtkutchehry.com
JAI THAKUR		8130703334, 9355723300	jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com
RAJEEV RANJAN		9334553249	rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com
ASHOK MISHRA		9718327746	sales@courtkutchehry.com
RAVI KUMAR			ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com

Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1) Vs. Registrar Of Companies And Ors, (2020) 07 NCLT CK 0058

NCLT allowed the application filed by the applicant, under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 for restoration of the name of the struck off company. While allowing the application NCLT held that the Income Tax Department is an aggrieved party within the meaning of section 252(1)(3) as it has to recover taxes payable by respondent company and great prejudice will be caused to the Appellant if the name of the respondent company is not restored back. In the above circumstances, this appeal is allowed. The Registrar of companies is therefore directed to restore the name of the Respondent Company in their Register and also proceed to take such other and further penal action against the Respondent Company in accordance with the statutory provisions.