Disallowance under tax law for investment expenses cannot be applied mechanically; authority must record clear reasons before increasing assessee's su...
Reduction of share capital under Section 66 was examined for jurisdictional defects in appellate bench composition, procedural sufficiency of the statutory notice and disclosures, independence of the valuer, and the permissibility of applying a discount for lack of marketability (DLOM). The Court found no jurisdictional defect in the tribunal's bench composition and declined to disturb the tribunal orders. It held Section 66 does not require inclusion of a valuation report in the notice where the offered price and reports are available for inspection, rejected a claim of demonstrable valuer bias, and accepted that DLOM and the valuation were not manifestly unreasonable, so the reduction stands.
Reduction of share capital under Section 66 was examined for jurisdictional defects in appellate bench composition, procedural sufficiency of the statutory notice and disclosures, independence of the valuer, and the permissibility of applying a discount for lack of marketability (DLOM). The Court found no jurisdictional defect in the tribunal's bench composition and declined to disturb the tribunal orders. It held Section 66 does not require inclusion of a valuation report in the notice where the offered price and reports are available for inspection, rejected a claim of demonstrable valuer bias, and accepted that DLOM and the valuation were not manifestly unreasonable, so the reduction stands.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
