Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Approval of scheme of amalgamation - Application of the "Alter Ego" Principle - Violation of Section 233 of the Companies Act, 2013 - requirement of holding at least ninety percent of the total numbers of shares - The complainant (opposite party) argued that the petitioner made a false declaration regarding the approval of the amalgamation scheme, misleading the authorities by stating that the scheme was approved by the requisite majority of members, which did not constitute 90% of total members but rather those present and voting. - The High Court hold that by targeting the petitioner (the Company Secretary) alone, without implicating the corporation or other responsible individuals, the prosecution is deemed to be fundamentally flawed and an abuse of the legal process. The petitioner, acting in his official capacity, should not bear sole responsibility for corporate actions unless specific wrongdoing on his part can be demonstrated.
Approval of scheme of amalgamation - Application of the "Alter Ego" Principle - Violation of Section 233 of the Companies Act, 2013 - requirement of holding at least ninety percent of the total numbers of shares - The complainant (opposite party) argued that the petitioner made a false declaration regarding the approval of the amalgamation scheme, misleading the authorities by stating that the scheme was approved by the requisite majority of members, which did not constitute 90% of total members but rather those present and voting. - The High Court hold that by targeting the petitioner (the Company Secretary) alone, without implicating the corporation or other responsible individuals, the prosecution is deemed to be fundamentally flawed and an abuse of the legal process. The petitioner, acting in his official capacity, should not bear sole responsibility for corporate actions unless specific wrongdoing on his part can be demonstrated.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
