Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
The Tribunal held that a 1991-92 letter of intent did not create enforceable rights in the immovable property because the area and identity of the premises were not finalised and the allotment crystallised only later. Enforceable rights arose only when the share and occupancy documents were issued and the lease deed was executed and registered in financial year 2010-11. The holding period was therefore reckoned from 2010-11, and since the property was sold on 02.04.2012, it was held for less than 36 months. The asset was correctly treated as a short-term capital asset, and the gain was taxable as short-term capital gain; contrary authorities were distinguished on the basis that they involved final or binding allotments.
The Tribunal held that a 1991-92 letter of intent did not create enforceable rights in the immovable property because the area and identity of the premises were not finalised and the allotment crystallised only later. Enforceable rights arose only when the share and occupancy documents were issued and the lease deed was executed and registered in financial year 2010-11. The holding period was therefore reckoned from 2010-11, and since the property was sold on 02.04.2012, it was held for less than 36 months. The asset was correctly treated as a short-term capital asset, and the gain was taxable as short-term capital gain; contrary authorities were distinguished on the basis that they involved final or binding allotments.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.