Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 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 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 
