Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, addressed the modification of a Demerger Scheme's terms by changing the Appointed Date to the date of the Impugned Order's pronouncement. The Tribunal held that if statutory provisions are complied with and there is no violation of law or public policy, the NCLT lacks jurisdiction to question the commercial wisdom of those approving the scheme. Altering the Appointed Date could have significant financial implications, and the Tribunal's role is supervisory if all sanctioning parameters are met. The reliance on a previous case was deemed incorrect as the Appointed Date should align with the scheme's provisions. The appeal was allowed, confirming the Appointed Date as per the scheme and not the date of the NCLT's pronouncement.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, addressed the modification of a Demerger Scheme's terms by changing the Appointed Date to the date of the Impugned Order's pronouncement. The Tribunal held that if statutory provisions are complied with and there is no violation of law or public policy, the NCLT lacks jurisdiction to question the commercial wisdom of those approving the scheme. Altering the Appointed Date could have significant financial implications, and the Tribunal's role is supervisory if all sanctioning parameters are met. The reliance on a previous case was deemed incorrect as the Appointed Date should align with the scheme's provisions. The appeal was allowed, confirming the Appointed Date as per the scheme and not the date of the NCLT's pronouncement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
