<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1992 (3) TMI 280 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102262</link>
    <description>The court approved the amalgamation scheme of three private limited companies subject to conditions ensuring compliance with the law and protecting public interest. The approval was based on unanimous support from stakeholders and assurances that the scheme was not for tax avoidance. Conditions included executing conveyance instruments, addressing capital gains tax liabilities, and accountability for pre-amalgamation legal breaches. The court emphasized its discretion in sanctioning the scheme and imposed safeguards to prevent any misuse. The decision was rendered on March 31, 1992, following scrutiny of procedural formalities and objections raised by the official liquidator.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:42:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139311" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (3) TMI 280 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102262</link>
      <description>The court approved the amalgamation scheme of three private limited companies subject to conditions ensuring compliance with the law and protecting public interest. The approval was based on unanimous support from stakeholders and assurances that the scheme was not for tax avoidance. Conditions included executing conveyance instruments, addressing capital gains tax liabilities, and accountability for pre-amalgamation legal breaches. The court emphasized its discretion in sanctioning the scheme and imposed safeguards to prevent any misuse. The decision was rendered on March 31, 1992, following scrutiny of procedural formalities and objections raised by the official liquidator.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102262</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>