<?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>2010 (11) TMI 1098 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287863</link>
    <description>The Court approved the scheme of arrangement under Sections 391, 392, and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, for demerger and merger. Despite objections raised by the Regional Director regarding meeting procedures, appointed date contradiction, and merger of authorized share capital, the Court found that all stakeholders were duly notified, and approvals were obtained from relevant parties. The Court clarified the appointed date&#039;s purpose, rejected objections on share capital merger, and emphasized compliance with legal provisions. No public or regulatory objections were raised, and the scheme was approved with a reminder of stamp duty and fee liabilities for the transferor company.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 May 2020 10:49:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=612298" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (11) TMI 1098 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287863</link>
      <description>The Court approved the scheme of arrangement under Sections 391, 392, and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, for demerger and merger. Despite objections raised by the Regional Director regarding meeting procedures, appointed date contradiction, and merger of authorized share capital, the Court found that all stakeholders were duly notified, and approvals were obtained from relevant parties. The Court clarified the appointed date&#039;s purpose, rejected objections on share capital merger, and emphasized compliance with legal provisions. No public or regulatory objections were raised, and the scheme was approved with a reminder of stamp duty and fee liabilities for the transferor company.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287863</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>