<?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>2015 (3) TMI 115 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257179</link>
    <description>In a court-sanctioned amalgamation, compliance with Section 117 and filing of e-form MGT-14 was treated as unnecessary where the scheme and articles already provided for the relevant share-capital alteration and the transferee company had completed the capital increase formalities. The scheme was also accepted as satisfying the requirement that the transferor company stand dissolved without winding up, since that consequence follows the amalgamation framework and was reflected in the scheme. An accounting objection concerning any surplus on amalgamation was not accepted as a reason to amend the scheme, and any post-amalgamation surplus was directed to be carried to capital reserve. The scheme of amalgamation was sanctioned and approved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2015 05:56:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=377931" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 115 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257179</link>
      <description>In a court-sanctioned amalgamation, compliance with Section 117 and filing of e-form MGT-14 was treated as unnecessary where the scheme and articles already provided for the relevant share-capital alteration and the transferee company had completed the capital increase formalities. The scheme was also accepted as satisfying the requirement that the transferor company stand dissolved without winding up, since that consequence follows the amalgamation framework and was reflected in the scheme. An accounting objection concerning any surplus on amalgamation was not accepted as a reason to amend the scheme, and any post-amalgamation surplus was directed to be carried to capital reserve. The scheme of amalgamation was sanctioned and approved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257179</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>