Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The NCLAT allowed the appeal and sanctioned the scheme of amalgamation u/ss 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013. It held that the DCF method used for share valuation was a recognised method, and the valuers and amalgamating companies cannot be faulted for using it. No statutory or regulatory authority, except the Income Tax Department, raised objections. The NCLAT relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Miheer H. Mafatlal v. Mafatlal Industries Ltd., which stated that once the exchange ratio is determined by experts, courts should not substitute it if accepted by an overwhelming majority of shareholders acting bona fide. The NCLAT concluded that the NCLT erred in interfering with the scheme against the commercial wisdom of shareholders, creditors, and directors.
The NCLAT allowed the appeal and sanctioned the scheme of amalgamation u/ss 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013. It held that the DCF method used for share valuation was a recognised method, and the valuers and amalgamating companies cannot be faulted for using it. No statutory or regulatory authority, except the Income Tax Department, raised objections. The NCLAT relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Miheer H. Mafatlal v. Mafatlal Industries Ltd., which stated that once the exchange ratio is determined by experts, courts should not substitute it if accepted by an overwhelming majority of shareholders acting bona fide. The NCLAT concluded that the NCLT erred in interfering with the scheme against the commercial wisdom of shareholders, creditors, and directors.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
