Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The NCLAT held that the NCLT erred in unilaterally changing the appointed date from 1.4.2019 to 1.4.2020 while admitting the scheme of arrangement. The application was filed on 1.12.2019, and as per the circular, the appointed date within a year of filing did not require any justification. Even if the appointed date was ante-dated beyond a year, mere justification that it was not against public interest was sufficient. Despite the Covid-19 pandemic delay, the appointed date should have remained 1.4.2019. The NCLT's role is supervisory, and if statutory compliance and no violation of law or public policy is found, it cannot sit in appeal over the commercial wisdom of the parties approving the scheme. Altering the appointed date would have serious financial implications. The NCLAT allowed the appeal, restoring the appointed date as 1.4.2019.
The NCLAT held that the NCLT erred in unilaterally changing the appointed date from 1.4.2019 to 1.4.2020 while admitting the scheme of arrangement. The application was filed on 1.12.2019, and as per the circular, the appointed date within a year of filing did not require any justification. Even if the appointed date was ante-dated beyond a year, mere justification that it was not against public interest was sufficient. Despite the Covid-19 pandemic delay, the appointed date should have remained 1.4.2019. The NCLT's role is supervisory, and if statutory compliance and no violation of law or public policy is found, it cannot sit in appeal over the commercial wisdom of the parties approving the scheme. Altering the appointed date would have serious financial implications. The NCLAT allowed the appeal, restoring the appointed date as 1.4.2019.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
