<?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>2011 (3) TMI 1470 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213558</link>
    <description>The court granted sanction to the Scheme of Arrangement under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, allowing the demerger of passive infrastructure assets from transferor companies to a transferee company. Despite objections from the Regional Director and the Income-tax Department regarding employee transfers, tax liabilities, and public interest, the court approved the scheme, emphasizing compliance with statutory requirements and the alignment with government policies. The Income-tax Department retained the right to assess tax liabilities independently post-approval, and the petitioners were reminded of their obligation to pay stamp duty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2013 18:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186959" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 1470 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213558</link>
      <description>The court granted sanction to the Scheme of Arrangement under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, allowing the demerger of passive infrastructure assets from transferor companies to a transferee company. Despite objections from the Regional Director and the Income-tax Department regarding employee transfers, tax liabilities, and public interest, the court approved the scheme, emphasizing compliance with statutory requirements and the alignment with government policies. The Income-tax Department retained the right to assess tax liabilities independently post-approval, and the petitioners were reminded of their obligation to pay stamp duty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213558</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>