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...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
