Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Mechanical approval under search assessment law vitiates assessments when sanction lacks application of mind; retrospective curative provision cannot ...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings barred...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings barred the challenge to cessation from directorship and dilution of shareholding where the appellant was found to have knowledge of the impugned acts by January 2013, so time ran from that point and a continuing cause of action was rejected on the facts. A new contention based on the Articles of Association and the Companies Act was not entertained because it had not been raised before the adjudicating authority. The direction for valuation by an independent registered valuer was upheld, as the appellant had opportunities to participate, the relevant date was correctly applied, and no basis was shown to reopen the valuation in appeal.
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings barred the challenge to cessation from directorship and dilution of shareholding where the appellant was found to have knowledge of the impugned acts by January 2013, so time ran from that point and a continuing cause of action was rejected on the facts. A new contention based on the Articles of Association and the Companies Act was not entertained because it had not been raised before the adjudicating authority. The direction for valuation by an independent registered valuer was upheld, as the appellant had opportunities to participate, the relevant date was correctly applied, and no basis was shown to reopen the valuation in appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.