Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
