Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
The petition alleges oppression and mismanagement by the company's majority shareholders against the petitioners, who were removed as directors through an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM). The key points are: The burden is on the petitioners to prove oppressive conduct u/s 242. The EGM notice for removal complied with legal requirements, and the meeting was validly held. The majority shareholders' decision to remove directors cannot be judicially scrutinized as it is part of corporate democracy. Mere inconvenience caused by the legal process doesn't negate its validity. Oppression requires continuous wrongful acts by the majority against the minority, not just lack of confidence. The petitioners failed to prove mismanagement or likelihood of future prejudicial conduct due to the change in management. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of evidence of oppression or mismanagement.
The petition alleges oppression and mismanagement by the company's majority shareholders against the petitioners, who were removed as directors through an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM). The key points are: The burden is on the petitioners to prove oppressive conduct u/s 242. The EGM notice for removal complied with legal requirements, and the meeting was validly held. The majority shareholders' decision to remove directors cannot be judicially scrutinized as it is part of corporate democracy. Mere inconvenience caused by the legal process doesn't negate its validity. Oppression requires continuous wrongful acts by the majority against the minority, not just lack of confidence. The petitioners failed to prove mismanagement or likelihood of future prejudicial conduct due to the change in management. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of evidence of oppression or mismanagement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
