Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Disqualification of the petitioners as Directors - repayment of deposits - In view of the exemption under the 1975 Rules, more specifically Rules 2(b)(ix) and (xi) of the same, no liability within the contemplation of Sections 164 and 167 could have been imposed on the Company and/or the petitioners - the disqualifications envisaged under Section 164 and Section 167 of the Act were not applicable to the petitioners and, as such, the decision disqualifying the petitioners' DIN and the consequential vacation of office were illegal and bad in the eye of law. - HC
Disqualification of the petitioners as Directors - repayment of deposits - In view of the exemption under the 1975 Rules, more specifically Rules 2(b)(ix) and (xi) of the same, no liability within the contemplation of Sections 164 and 167 could have been imposed on the Company and/or the petitioners - the disqualifications envisaged under Section 164 and Section 167 of the Act were not applicable to the petitioners and, as such, the decision disqualifying the petitioners' DIN and the consequential vacation of office were illegal and bad in the eye of law. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
