Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
