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 crux of the matter revolves around allegations of oppression, mismanagement, illegal sale of company land, allotment of equity shares, appointment and removal of directors, and the legality of extraordinary general meetings and resolutions. The key findings are: the sale of land parcels at a lower price, though below market value, does not constitute oppression or mismanagement as the company urgently required funds, and the petitioner had consented to the sale price. The lease deed with Padmavatahi Ispat, though signed, was never executed and subsequently cancelled, hence not amounting to oppression. The allotment of 17,29,000 equity shares to respondents is held to be legal and valid. The acts of respondents are not prejudicial or oppressive to petitioners, nor are the company's affairs conducted prejudicially. Consequently, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed by the Tribunal.
The crux of the matter revolves around allegations of oppression, mismanagement, illegal sale of company land, allotment of equity shares, appointment and removal of directors, and the legality of extraordinary general meetings and resolutions. The key findings are: the sale of land parcels at a lower price, though below market value, does not constitute oppression or mismanagement as the company urgently required funds, and the petitioner had consented to the sale price. The lease deed with Padmavatahi Ispat, though signed, was never executed and subsequently cancelled, hence not amounting to oppression. The allotment of 17,29,000 equity shares to respondents is held to be legal and valid. The acts of respondents are not prejudicial or oppressive to petitioners, nor are the company's affairs conducted prejudicially. Consequently, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed by the Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
