Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
