Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
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.