Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Exempt-income expenditure disallowance is confined to investments that actually generated exempt income, while supported business expenses remain dedu...
Objective characteristics and principal use govern mining-tyre classification, while fresh advance ruling applications may rely on additional technica...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
801 to 820 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Company Tribunal held that Respondent No. 1 company is not a quasi-partnership due to lack of equality in shareholding since 1997 and failure to establish grounds for winding up. The alleged family settlement of 1986 was not proved. The rights issue reducing petitioners' shareholding from 15% to 7.5% was not challenged earlier, hence cannot be grounds for oppression now. Non-payment of gratuity to Petitioner No. 1 and non-appointment of Petitioner No. 2 as director cannot constitute oppression. The petition was partly allowed, directing Respondents No. 1 to 5 to buy out petitioners' shares at fair value determined by an independent valuer.
The Company Tribunal held that Respondent No. 1 company is not a quasi-partnership due to lack of equality in shareholding since 1997 and failure to establish grounds for winding up. The alleged family settlement of 1986 was not proved. The rights issue reducing petitioners' shareholding from 15% to 7.5% was not challenged earlier, hence cannot be grounds for oppression now. Non-payment of gratuity to Petitioner No. 1 and non-appointment of Petitioner No. 2 as director cannot constitute oppression. The petition was partly allowed, directing Respondents No. 1 to 5 to buy out petitioners' shares at fair value determined by an independent valuer.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
