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 ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
The NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging a Scheme of Arrangement between ICICI Bank Ltd and ICICI Securities Ltd. The Tribunal held that appellants lacked standing to object as they did not meet the shareholding threshold under s.230(4) of Companies Act, 2013. The NCLAT found no conflict between s.230 and Regulation 37 of SEBI Delisting Regulations, ruling that no separate meeting of public shareholders was required as the scheme uniformly affected all equity shareholders. The scheme had received approval from 93.82% of equity shareholders and 71.89% of public shareholders. The appellants' minimal 0.08% shareholding was insufficient to maintain the appeal as "aggrieved persons," with the Tribunal noting that their objections were impeding shareholder democracy.
The NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging a Scheme of Arrangement between ICICI Bank Ltd and ICICI Securities Ltd. The Tribunal held that appellants lacked standing to object as they did not meet the shareholding threshold under s.230(4) of Companies Act, 2013. The NCLAT found no conflict between s.230 and Regulation 37 of SEBI Delisting Regulations, ruling that no separate meeting of public shareholders was required as the scheme uniformly affected all equity shareholders. The scheme had received approval from 93.82% of equity shareholders and 71.89% of public shareholders. The appellants' minimal 0.08% shareholding was insufficient to maintain the appeal as "aggrieved persons," with the Tribunal noting that their objections were impeding shareholder democracy.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
