CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
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.