Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1481 to 1500 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The NCLAT declined to interfere with an interim protective order in oppression and mismanagement proceedings, holding that the order merely preserved the status quo and protected the subject matter pending NCLT adjudication. It found the appellants' complaint that their case had not been considered to be unfounded because the impugned order recorded their stand. The Tribunal also noted that the earlier restraint order had not been challenged. As no appellate error was shown in the discretionary interim arrangement, the modified directions already issued concerning operation of the bank accounts were continued.
The NCLAT declined to interfere with an interim protective order in oppression and mismanagement proceedings, holding that the order merely preserved the status quo and protected the subject matter pending NCLT adjudication. It found the appellants' complaint that their case had not been considered to be unfounded because the impugned order recorded their stand. The Tribunal also noted that the earlier restraint order had not been challenged. As no appellate error was shown in the discretionary interim arrangement, the modified directions already issued concerning operation of the bank accounts were continued.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.