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 Tribunal has the authority to order the purchase of shares by the company from any member u/s 242(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013, in cases of oppression and mismanagement. The Supreme Court has held that even without finding oppression, the court may grant relief to achieve substantial justice between parties. Though reasons were not explicitly stated, the Tribunal considered submissions and cited case laws before passing the order u/s 242(2)(b). As the respondent cannot sell shares in the open market, being a private company, the Tribunal's order to purchase shares is not prejudicial and aids smooth company operations. The NCLAT dismissed the appeal, finding no illegality in the Tribunal's order.
The Tribunal has the authority to order the purchase of shares by the company from any member u/s 242(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013, in cases of oppression and mismanagement. The Supreme Court has held that even without finding oppression, the court may grant relief to achieve substantial justice between parties. Though reasons were not explicitly stated, the Tribunal considered submissions and cited case laws before passing the order u/s 242(2)(b). As the respondent cannot sell shares in the open market, being a private company, the Tribunal's order to purchase shares is not prejudicial and aids smooth company operations. The NCLAT dismissed the appeal, finding no illegality in the Tribunal's order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.