Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
A substituted petitioner could not sustain oppression and mismanagement claims where it had participated in, consented to, and benefited from the impugned allotment and related transactions, and had not amended the withdrawn original pleadings. The Tribunal held that silence in the meetings and absence of recorded dissent operated as assent, creating estoppel against later challenge. It further held that the share issue could not be invalidated on the basis of issue at par, absence of valuation, or connection of allottees with management under the Companies Act, 1956. Alleged contravention of Section 77 also failed for want of proof that company funds were used for purchase of its own shares. Securities law violations were held outside the scope of Sections 397-398 proceedings.
A substituted petitioner could not sustain oppression and mismanagement claims where it had participated in, consented to, and benefited from the impugned allotment and related transactions, and had not amended the withdrawn original pleadings. The Tribunal held that silence in the meetings and absence of recorded dissent operated as assent, creating estoppel against later challenge. It further held that the share issue could not be invalidated on the basis of issue at par, absence of valuation, or connection of allottees with management under the Companies Act, 1956. Alleged contravention of Section 77 also failed for want of proof that company funds were used for purchase of its own shares. Securities law violations were held outside the scope of Sections 397-398 proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
