Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
Tax determination against deceased proprietor invalid where no notice to legal representative; appeal rejected without addressing jurisdictional defec...
Revocation of GST registration and permission to file blocked returns; conditional defreezing of bank accounts after security and instalment applicati...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6681 to 6700 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The dominant issue was whether the tribunal's order deciding an...
Company oppression/mismanagement petition amendments and maintainability after alleged share transfer and forgery claims; tribunal order quashed for lacking reasons.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The dominant issue was whether the tribunal's order deciding an amendment application and objections to maintainability under ss. 241-244 of the Companies Act, 2013 amounted to a reasoned adjudication. It was held that an amendment must be tested for reasonableness, propriety, and its consequential impact on the opposite party's right of defence; mere reproduction of pleadings and a conclusory observation does not reflect judicial application of mind, hence the amendment order was quashed and remitted for fresh consideration. On maintainability, the order was found perverse for not recording findings on the specific plea under s. 241 and not addressing the effect of the alleged share transfer and fraud/forgery allegations, leading to quashing of the impugned order and allowance of the appeal - NCLAT
The dominant issue was whether the tribunal's order deciding an amendment application and objections to maintainability under ss. 241-244 of the Companies Act, 2013 amounted to a reasoned adjudication. It was held that an amendment must be tested for reasonableness, propriety, and its consequential impact on the opposite party's right of defence; mere reproduction of pleadings and a conclusory observation does not reflect judicial application of mind, hence the amendment order was quashed and remitted for fresh consideration. On maintainability, the order was found perverse for not recording findings on the specific plea under s. 241 and not addressing the effect of the alleged share transfer and fraud/forgery allegations, leading to quashing of the impugned order and allowance of the appeal - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
