Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
