Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court addressed the issue of whether a sale agreement made after the commencement of a company's winding up is affected by Section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. The court held that the winding up commences at the presentation of the petition and any disposition of company property after that is void unless the court orders otherwise. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction is equitable and should prevent unjust enrichment by the company. Referring to a Supreme Court case, the court noted that the term "void" in Section 536(2) does not always imply complete nullity, but rather voidable. The Applicant had conducted due diligence, paid consideration, settled dues, and obtained necessary permissions, making the transaction bonafide, fair, and just. Therefore, the court ratified the sale agreement, protecting the transaction.
The High Court addressed the issue of whether a sale agreement made after the commencement of a company's winding up is affected by Section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. The court held that the winding up commences at the presentation of the petition and any disposition of company property after that is void unless the court orders otherwise. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction is equitable and should prevent unjust enrichment by the company. Referring to a Supreme Court case, the court noted that the term "void" in Section 536(2) does not always imply complete nullity, but rather voidable. The Applicant had conducted due diligence, paid consideration, settled dues, and obtained necessary permissions, making the transaction bonafide, fair, and just. Therefore, the court ratified the sale agreement, protecting the transaction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.