<?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>Second article on “S.68 NRA iron and Steel P. Ltd. (SC) - A fit case for recall and reconsideration by the Supreme Court to avoid miscarriage of justice and in- justice in future”.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=8463</link>
    <description>The article argues that the Supreme Court&#039;s decision on unexplained share capital under section 68 in NRA Iron &amp; Steel failed to advert to multiple recent Supreme Court orders and allied authority, misapprehended evidentiary burdens relating to receipts (including cheques honoured in due course), and overlooked legal and commercial significance of share certificates and premium. It alleges absence of respondent representation and suppression or non-noting of controlling precedents by revenue counsel, and urges recall and fresh adjudication so that rulings align with precedent, negotiable-instrument and company-law principles.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 13 Apr 2019 05:38:08 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Apr 2019 05:38:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=566735" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Second article on “S.68 NRA iron and Steel P. Ltd. (SC) - A fit case for recall and reconsideration by the Supreme Court to avoid miscarriage of justice and in- justice in future”.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=8463</link>
      <description>The article argues that the Supreme Court&#039;s decision on unexplained share capital under section 68 in NRA Iron &amp; Steel failed to advert to multiple recent Supreme Court orders and allied authority, misapprehended evidentiary burdens relating to receipts (including cheques honoured in due course), and overlooked legal and commercial significance of share certificates and premium. It alleges absence of respondent representation and suppression or non-noting of controlling precedents by revenue counsel, and urges recall and fresh adjudication so that rulings align with precedent, negotiable-instrument and company-law principles.</description>
      <category>Articles</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 13 Apr 2019 05:38:08 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=8463</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>