https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263522 A security clearance condition referring to the applicant company and its directors was held not to extend by implication to shareholders, especially where refusal of clearance carried serious civil consequences and the clause required strict construction. The notice's express reference to shareholder control in other provisions reinforced that shareholders were excluded from clause 3.8. The corporate veil could be pierced only in a restrictive case showing that the company was a sham or camouflage used to evade liability or conceal wrongdoing, which was not established on the stated facts. Accordingly, denial of security clearance was not justified and the rejection founded on it could not stand. en-us Sun, 26 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Nov 2016 17:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263522 A security clearance condition referring to the applicant company and its directors was held not to extend by implication to shareholders, especially where refusal of clearance carried serious civil consequences and the clause required strict construction. The notice's express reference to shareholder control in other provisions reinforced that shareholders were excluded from clause 3.8. The corporate veil could be pierced only in a restrictive case showing that the company was a sham or camouflage used to evade liability or conceal wrongdoing, which was not established on the stated facts. Accordingly, denial of security clearance was not justified and the rejection founded on it could not stand. Case-Laws Money Laundering Sun, 26 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263522