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...
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
