Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A composite scheme of amalgamation and demerger, once approved by shareholders and creditors, could not be narrowed by directing a separate demerger application or by altering the scheme's material terms. The NCLAT held that the scheme identified the amalgamated company, resulting company and demerged undertaking with sufficient specificity, and that demerger was an integral consequence of the sanctioned composite scheme under Sections 230 to 232. It also corrected factual errors in the sanction order concerning the effective date, the identity of the resulting company, and an unnecessary rider tied to an unadmitted petition. The order was set aside to the extent inconsistent with the approved scheme, while statutory dues, stamp duty, taxes and compliance obligations remained fully preserved.
A composite scheme of amalgamation and demerger, once approved by shareholders and creditors, could not be narrowed by directing a separate demerger application or by altering the scheme's material terms. The NCLAT held that the scheme identified the amalgamated company, resulting company and demerged undertaking with sufficient specificity, and that demerger was an integral consequence of the sanctioned composite scheme under Sections 230 to 232. It also corrected factual errors in the sanction order concerning the effective date, the identity of the resulting company, and an unnecessary rider tied to an unadmitted petition. The order was set aside to the extent inconsistent with the approved scheme, while statutory dues, stamp duty, taxes and compliance obligations remained fully preserved.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
