Profile
Arjun Singh Tamang is an Associate at Metalegal Advocates and advises clients on corporate law, startup advisory, private equity and venture capital transactions, mergers and acquisitions, and regulatory compliance matters.
He regularly assists startups, investors, and business enterprises on corporate structuring, investment transactions, commercial contracting, and governance-related matters. His experience includes transaction support, legal due diligence, investment documentation, and regulatory advisory across a range of industries.
Arjun combines strong legal research capabilities with a practical understanding of business transactions, enabling him to provide commercially focused legal support to growth-stage businesses and investors.
Education
Bachelor of Laws, Faculty of law, University of Delhi
Bachelor of Commerce, Sri Aurobindo College, University of Delhi
Professional Affiliations
Bar Council of India
Bar Council of Delhi
Practice
Corporate Law | Startups
Key Assignments
Assisting in mergers and acquisitions transactions, including transaction structuring, due diligence, and transaction documentation.
Advising startups and business enterprises on corporate governance, regulatory compliance, and commercial contracts.
Supporting legal due diligence exercises and investment transactions involving private equity and venture capital investments.
Assisting clients in responding to regulatory investigations and information requests from enforcement authorities.
Advising on strategic corporate transactions, founder matters, and investment-related documentation.
2025-05-19
4
min read
Supreme Court Reiterates Strict Limitation Framework Under IBC: No Condonation Beyond 45 Days for Appeals Before NCLAT
The Supreme Court, in Tata Steel Ltd. v. Raj Kumar Banerjee, reinforced the rigid limitation regime under the IBC by holding that appeals to the NCLAT must be filed within the prescribed 30-day window, with only a 15-day grace period allowed. The judgment underscores that even non-parties are bound by the statutory timeline, and tribunals cannot condone delays beyond this 45-day limit, ensuring procedural certainty and speed in insolvency proceedings.
2025-03-27T18:30:00Z
3
min read
Section 54 v. Section 54F: Tribunal Clarifies Capital Gains Exemption on Sale of Residential Property and Upholds Alternative Relief
The Jaipur ITAT’s ruling in Jai Singh Sethia v. DCIT/ACIT clarifies the distinction between Sections 54 and 54F under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal denied exemption under Section 54F due to the property’s residential classification but granted relief under Section 54, reaffirming that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive tax relief when eligibility conditions are otherwise satisfied.
2025-04-28T10:24:59.620Z
2
min read
Bombay High Court Reaffirms: CBDT Guidelines Cannot Override Statutory Powers in Tax Compounding Cases
Bombay High Court reaffirms that statutory law prevails over CBDT guidelines in compounding offences under income tax legislation.