Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
