MCA revises tenure of two judicial members in NCLAT till their attaining 67 years of age.
MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 5th January, 2021
S.O. 96(E).—In continuation of this Ministry’s notifications S.O. 3855(E) dated 28th October, 2020, the Central Government hereby revise the tenure of Justice (Retd.) Shri Bansi Lal Bhat and Justice (Retd.) Shri A.I.S. Cheema as Judicial Member, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) for a period till their attaining the age of 67 years, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F.No. A-40012/1/2020-Ad.IV]
GYANESHWAR KUMAR SINGH,Jt. Secy.
Note: The principal notification was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3,Sub-section (ii), vide numbers S.O. 3863(E) and S.O. 3864(E), dated the 11th December, 2017.
MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 15th January, 2021
S.O.192(E).––In continuation of this Ministry’s notifications S.O. 1049(E) dated 12th March, 2020, S.O. 2226(E) dated 06th July, 2020, S.O. 3168(E) dated 17th September, 2020 and S.O. 3856(E) dated 28th October, 2020, the term of office of Justice (Retd.) Shri Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial) as officiating Chairperson, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) is extended for a period of three months w.e.f. 01.01.2021 or till the appointment of regular Chairperson in NCLAT or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.
[F.No.A-40012/1/2020-Ad.IV]
GYANESHWAR KUMAR SINGH, Jt. Secy.
Note: The principal notification was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), vide number S.O. 1049(E), dated the 12th March, 2020.
- Revisionary order purportedly passed earlier but dispatched after written Submissions quashed
- Assessment u/s 147 based on seized material found during search of third party void ab-initio
- TDS deductors given relief for non deduction of TDS at higher rate for inoperative PANs
- Reassessment order quashed due to error in personal hearing video conferencing link
- Assessee may show that it was over assessed under erroneous impression of law
