Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
The High Court held that rejection of the application u/s 233 of...
Court says rejection of scheme of amalgamation application under Companies Act not justified. Govt must apply to Tribunal if scheme not in public interest.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The High Court held that rejection of the application u/s 233 of the Companies Act, 2013, for processing a scheme of amalgamation was not justified. The Court emphasized that if the Government deems a scheme not in public interest or creditors' interest, it must apply to the Tribunal for adjudication. In this case, as the declaration of solvency was filed and the scheme was approved, respondent should have followed the prescribed procedure by making an application to the Tribunal if any condition was not satisfied. The Court found the rejection order to be legally flawed and quashed it, disposing of the petition.
The High Court held that rejection of the application u/s 233 of the Companies Act, 2013, for processing a scheme of amalgamation was not justified. The Court emphasized that if the Government deems a scheme not in public interest or creditors' interest, it must apply to the Tribunal for adjudication. In this case, as the declaration of solvency was filed and the scheme was approved, respondent should have followed the prescribed procedure by making an application to the Tribunal if any condition was not satisfied. The Court found the rejection order to be legally flawed and quashed it, disposing of the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
