Capital-gains exemption for charitable trusts extends to qualifying fixed deposits, while unrecoverable TDS write-offs may constitute income applicati...
India-UK treaty characterisation of telecom-service receipts as business profits withstands unilateral domestic-law amendments for Indian tax purposes...
Transfer-pricing reimbursement adjustments require uncontrolled comparables and cannot become expense-genuineness reviews, resulting in deletion of th...
Food import sampling requirements support provisional release where unseized consignments conform to standards and raw areca classification is unestab...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4894 
