Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
NCLAT held that Respondent-foreign shareholder was not a "promoter" on the date of the rights issue, as it neither exercised control nor held majority shareholding nor had board representation, and had been validly reclassified as "public shareholder/other than promoter" by board resolution prior to the issue. NCLAT clarified that promoter reclassification is permissible for unlisted public companies and SEBI circulars for listed entities are inapplicable. Under Rule 9A, the obligation to hold securities in dematerialised form before subscribing rested on the shareholder; the Appellant's duty was limited to facilitating dematerialisation, which Respondent never sought. Rejection of Respondent's application and continuation of the rights issue were lawful. NCLAT set aside NCLT's order cancelling the rights issue and directing refund, and allowed the appeal, leaving the pending oppression and mismanagement petition to be decided independently.
NCLAT held that Respondent-foreign shareholder was not a "promoter" on the date of the rights issue, as it neither exercised control nor held majority shareholding nor had board representation, and had been validly reclassified as "public shareholder/other than promoter" by board resolution prior to the issue. NCLAT clarified that promoter reclassification is permissible for unlisted public companies and SEBI circulars for listed entities are inapplicable. Under Rule 9A, the obligation to hold securities in dematerialised form before subscribing rested on the shareholder; the Appellant's duty was limited to facilitating dematerialisation, which Respondent never sought. Rejection of Respondent's application and continuation of the rights issue were lawful. NCLAT set aside NCLT's order cancelling the rights issue and directing refund, and allowed the appeal, leaving the pending oppression and mismanagement petition to be decided independently.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
