Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Transfer of 7000 equity shares - prohibitory order u/s 45MB (2) of RBI Act - Admitted possession of 4000 shares certificates and transfer deeds by Anoop Jain - Issue of consideration for 4000 shares - Anoop Jain relied on Delhi stock exchange register for payment of consideration - Appellants objected discrepancy in timeline of sale by appellant No. 1 and purchase by respondents, lack of proof of consideration payment - Matter remanded to Company Court to inquire when 4000 shares sold to Anoop Jain, 1500, 900 and 600 shares sold to Murari Saraf, Banwari Lal Saraf and Bihari Lal Saraf respectively by appellant No. 1, and whether consideration paid - If established appellant No. 1 divested rights before 09.04.1997 and respondents paid consideration, impugned order to follow - Appeal disposed by way of remand.
Transfer of 7000 equity shares - prohibitory order u/s 45MB (2) of RBI Act - Admitted possession of 4000 shares certificates and transfer deeds by Anoop Jain - Issue of consideration for 4000 shares - Anoop Jain relied on Delhi stock exchange register for payment of consideration - Appellants objected discrepancy in timeline of sale by appellant No. 1 and purchase by respondents, lack of proof of consideration payment - Matter remanded to Company Court to inquire when 4000 shares sold to Anoop Jain, 1500, 900 and 600 shares sold to Murari Saraf, Banwari Lal Saraf and Bihari Lal Saraf respectively by appellant No. 1, and whether consideration paid - If established appellant No. 1 divested rights before 09.04.1997 and respondents paid consideration, impugned order to follow - Appeal disposed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
